|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68961
04/23/06 07:45
04/23/06 07:45
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
God said, "If you eat that fruit, you can be sure you will die." It doesn't get much more clear than that. Adam ate the fruit, so he brought it on himself. Doesn't mean that God is heartless, it was 'our' choice.
This is hardly a convincing argument. At first, we want to keep this discussion on a scientific level, which excludes using bible quotes as arguments.
Second, we have besides our intellect also a basic concept of justice and fairness. According to this concept it is reprehensible to let someone else suffer for what some Adam did (of course you could say that God does not care about human concepts like justice and fairness - but this would mean that we are morally superior and not made in his image).
Third, this argument applies to humans and does not explain the ageing of almost all multi-cell species with the only exception of some very old marine species (echinoderms). If God wanted to see animals suffer also for Adam's sin, for what reason was sea cucumber spared?
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68962
04/23/06 18:57
04/23/06 18:57
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
This is hardly a convincing argument. At first, we want to keep this discussion on a scientific level, which excludes using bible quotes as arguments.
In that case, the question itself is unscientific and you shouldn't even bother asking it. You should just assume that that's the way things are now, and not consider it a reflection of our creator.
How do I scientifically prove that the earth at one point was perfect? All I have is an inspired account of the way things used to be. You don't happen to believe it like I do, but then again is there anything you believe in that is based on a really old 'record' that you have to interpret through your (or others') modern bias and beliefs?
Quote:
According to this concept it is reprehensible to let someone else suffer for what some Adam did
If God was suspending natural death, or had kept away the natural 'programming' for death, and then took away that protection like he said he would, then it still goes back to Adam. Essentially, the creation was cursed. That means that since Adam was now allowed to die (before he had any children) then his children would inherit the ability to grow old and die. Then, since we now have the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, things like murder come into the fold, stuff like that.
Quote:
(of course you could say that God does not care about human concepts like justice and fairness - but this would mean that we are morally superior and not made in his image).
If Adam and Eve chose death for themselves and their descendants, this is a reflection of the consequences of our morally wrong choices (sin). I can't argue against what you're saying, because you're pointing out an inconsistancy with something that isn't even being said.
Quote:
If God wanted to see animals suffer also for Adam's sin, for what reason was sea cucumber spared?
Its not, it can be killed just like any other animal. That it can't age really doesn't matter. It isn't spared from death, just like the rest of creation after we brought down the curse by disobeying God. The way death comes about isn't important, its the fact that all creatures can die. Problem solved?
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68963
04/23/06 19:34
04/23/06 19:34
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
You propose that Lions and tigers are the same species? I hardly think so. Every lion I've talked with says he is definitely not the same species as a tiger!
Of course, the depends on which of the 5 or so definitions of species you use, but since they can mate and produce fertile (which isn't necessary, but it helps this case) very fit offspring, that makes them the same species. There's no two ways around that. In nature, they wouldn't mate because they're 'enemies' and would be more likely to kill one another, but it happened in a zoo. You can try all you want to confuse the facts on this one, but its a waste of time.
Quote:
In fact what you've done is tacitly accepted evolution, because breeding experiments are in fact a version of forced evolution, with natural selection being replaced by human selection.
Again, the confusion that no matter what the change is, its an evolution-scale change. That's not true. If you want to convince me that germs became man, you have to do more that just show any kind of change at all. You have to show me how these germs could have accidentally written a gigantic library's worth of genetic information.
If we combine the genes for tigers and lions, we get a liger. However, that isn't evolution. Nothing new is being written, we've just combined already written DNA.
Its no wonder you find it easy to believe evolution, you don't even know what it is.
Quote:
Dogs for instance may still be one species, but if given many centuraies of continued breding, there is no doubt that they would speciate.
Even more confusion that speciation is evolution in action. Breeding barriers can pop up that allow animals, that are the same animal just less genetically variant, to stop being able to interbreed. They did it with flies, but what they didn't do while speciating those flies is create anything more complex than the original fly. Sometimes, if you breed certain characteristics like behavior or visual patterns you'll create a different species. Ok, but now either branch of the original species is just less variant than the original species they were branched from. You didn't have a fly grow gills when it speciated. Animals can change, even speciate, this is just a natural consequence. I'm not seeing how this explains germs-to-humans.
Quote:
Homo Erectus is clearly not the same species as Homo Sapiens, there are too many morphological differences.
The same differences that we saw in past humans, and even some in modern humans? Humans that in fact are still humans and not non-humans like Homo erectus supposedly is?
Quote:
there is a great deal of evidence showing that as homonins evolved into modern humans, brain size increased in a clear curve upward.
They found a bunch of different ape skulls (some extinct, others of still living animals) and slapped dates on them based on their assumed age to line them up in a fashion that would prove evolution. This makes sense to an evolutionist because evolution is true, but if you can only find proof of evolution by assuming its true in the first place then I really am far from impressed.
Quote:
there are other cases that cant possibly be Homo Sapiens: what about Homo Habilis? Or H. Ergaster, H.Heidelbergensis?
I don't know, I'd have to research them further, which I'm not going to do anytime within the next few days. Right now, I'm studying up on genetics, which is more important than assuming that ape skulls are the precursor to humans.
Quote:
All hominins must either be H. Sapiens, or entirely unrelated species.
This is only 'untenable' from the perspective that evolution must be true.
Quote:
The earliest stone tools are several million years old
Sounds kind of strange to me, since the earth isn't millions of years old.
Quote:
The eye evolved in several steps.
I can believe that if you tell me how its possible. This is going to get us right back into the mutations debate, so I think we should stay there until we can conclude that one, but right now I'm doing a lot of research into genetics so that we can actually have a real discussion. So just give me a bit of time.
By the way, the more I find out the exact details for the condition and nature of life, and of genetics, the harder it is to believe that everything wasn't designed. Its absolutely amazing. And the idea of a lack of a creator is unimaginable.
However, I also need time to accurately state why I don't believe mutations write things like eyes, even if we give them 400,000+ years. Which is part of my research, and part of just taking my time in translating the idea in my head into words. So...more later on mutations. Which is probably the most important aspect of this debate.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/23/06 19:42.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68964
04/24/06 08:40
04/24/06 08:40
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
In that case, the question itself is unscientific and you shouldn't even bother asking it. You should just assume that that's the way things are now, and not consider it a reflection of our creator.
Remember: the "aging problem" arised from the basic question whether species were designed or evolved and what that means for the life span.
If species are evolved, you would expect a built-in decay - aging - because it limits the lifespan and accelerates evolution.
If species were designed, you would not expect a built-in decay, unless there were a particular reason for it.
This is a typical scientific question: comparing the observations - in this case, a design flaw - with the underlying theory. If the theory can not sufficiently explain the observations, then something is wrong with it.
You tried to explain aging with a moral argument: The very first human displeased his creator and thus became intentionally redesigned with a flaw, as a sort of punishment. As all humans are descendend from the first one, they also inherit the design flaw.
As I pointed out, this explanation is obviously wrong because that design flaw is shared by most species and precedes the first human by more than a billion years. So it can't possibly be caused by God's displeasure in humans. So you have still to come up with a non-moral explanation for aging if you want to save creationism as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68965
04/24/06 13:55
04/24/06 13:55
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
As I pointed out, this explanation is obviously wrong because that design flaw is shared by most species and precedes the first human by more than a billion years. So it can't possibly be caused by God's displeasure in humans. So you have still to come up with a non-moral explanation for aging if you want to save creationism as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).
Its an interesting question. Do you have any references that would outline aging in pre-adamic(4000 bc) species?
I also question your statement about predating humans for a billion years, the cambrian strata alone is barely 1/2 billion years old. Many of the species which hypothetically existed over a billion years ago would be barely eukaryotes.So I think it would be very difficult to find evidence of aging in the fossil record of these little creatures which existed a billion years ago.
The alleged timeline of evolution from procaryote to eukaryote was from around 4000 mya(4 billion) to 1500 mya(1.5 billion).
Regardless, the explanation is that there were multiple(2 or more) dispensations of creation. I.E. pre-adamic species. The bible does not rule out the possibility of previous civilizations, it only makes it clear that within THIS dispensation, man is the only creation created in His image. It also doesnt rule out other civilizations on other planets or universes. The Holy Book, the bible, was written to a specific audience, mankind.
edit:deleted last part of this post for the larger, better thought process in the next post 
Last edited by NITRO777; 04/24/06 14:20.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68968
04/24/06 15:40
04/24/06 15:40
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
this still does not answer the question why creatures were created with built-in decay in the first place, long before mankind.
No it doesn't, you are correct as far as I can see right now.
Quote:
However, science knows mechanisms of aging - one of them is a cell reproduction limit timed by the length of telomers.
OK. Do you know of any fossil evidence which shows pre-adamic(pre-4000 bc)creatures aging? It doesnt sound like the length of telomers is something that would readily fossilize.
In other words, where did you get the idea that there is evidence of aging in fossil records before 4000 bc? (Of course embryo to adult wouldnt be the type of aging required)
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#68969
04/24/06 18:02
04/24/06 18:02
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
OK. Do you know of any fossil evidence which shows pre-adamic(pre-4000 bc)creatures aging? It doesnt sound like the length of telomers is something that would readily fossilize.
In other words, where did you get the idea that there is evidence of aging in fossil records before 4000 bc? (Of course embryo to adult wouldnt be the type of aging required)
You are almost implying we would need a timemachine to see such things, but nevertheless I don't really see your point with the last part of your post. Fossils are evidence of death aren't they? Growth is the result of processing food and aging. Aren't bones indicators of aging too then? Why wouldn't be the aging from embryo to adult required as a type of aging? There are some species that are seemingly immortal, but off course can be killed. There are also species that live way longer than us humans, but off course we all know the annoying one-day-flies  . In short I don't think aging is really thát relevant for evolution, only the fact that shorter lives will speed up evolution, but they all die at one point. It would only be an argument if you could find a species that's really 100% immortal and can't be killed either. Otherwise it doesn't proof anything.
Yes, not everything get's fossilized, I don't like it either but often there are indirect indicators. Aging involves the cell reproduction limit, well even bones need cells to reproduce to be able to grow as far as I know, so if this limit is different, or not there at all, we would undoubtably see it. Did we ever find things that grow till infinity?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#68970
04/24/06 20:05
04/24/06 20:05
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
You are almost implying we would need a timemachine to see such things, but nevertheless I don't really see your point with the last part of your post.
There really is no specific point, I actually was curious as to what evidence could be found to show the decay which accompanies aging.
Quote:
Fossils are evidence of death aren't they?
Right, but not necessarily death by aging.Could be death by cataclysmic events like a worldwide flood, death by falling, death by extinction, tarpits, etc. etc.
Quote:
Why wouldn't be the aging from embryo to adult required as a type of aging?
Well because I believe that jcl was pointing out a design flaw if things were created. In a sense, an aging, decaying body would be viewed as a design flaw. However, the normal growth from egg to adulthood would not represent a flaw.
Quote:
Yes, not everything get's fossilized, I don't like it either but often there are indirect indicators. Aging involves the cell reproduction limit, well even bones need cells to reproduce to be able to grow as far as I know, so if this limit is different, or not there at all, we would undoubtably see it.
To be honest, I havent really checked into it that closely. I thought that perhaps if jcl pointed out this interesting question, perhaps he would have some type of reason behind it(like some type of link)or other research. For now, however, I dont have anything to base a case on.
For example, if the bodies of dinosaurs were found to have become weak and geriatric from some observable method which could be found in the fossil records, it would go a long way toward formulating the question of why God would instill this flaw in them considering that mankind is considered the reason for the decay of aging instilled in creatures and man didnt come on the scene untill after the dinosaurs.
IM not saying that no such evidence exists, there very well may a lot of it. I just thought that it would be logical to assume that since jcl brought up the point, then he would be very well aware of all the evidence which points to it, and in that case, I would be curious to find out.
But I dont care if its jcl answering or anyone else, thats not the point.
Quote:
Did we ever find things that grow till infinity?
So I guess what you mean is that if cellular reproduction limit has been met, then cells would no longer replicate? Arent cells in a constant state of replication?
|
|
|
|
