Sorry, I should clarify. I was thinking more along the lines of the actual falsifiable rather than interpretation. For example, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament contains a historical record that is so inaccurate, some scholars believe it was originally intended to be a work of fiction. The gospel of Luke dates Jesus\' birth at 6AD at the earliest, while Matthew says 4 BC at the latest. Those are things that don\'t get corrected with further evidence. They stay wrong.
Evolution?
- Thread starter junior elf
- Start date
Sorry, I should clarify. I was thinking more along the lines of the actual falsifiable rather than interpretation. For example, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament contains a historical record that is so inaccurate, some scholars believe it was originally intended to be a work of fiction. The gospel of Luke dates Jesus\' birth at 6AD at the earliest, while Matthew says 4 BC at the latest. Those are things that don\'t get corrected with further evidence. They stay wrong.
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Matthew 2:1 says:
1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea,
Not real specific there, but it places them in Bethlehem.
Luke 2:4-7:
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son...
Both books put his birth in Bethleham during the census.
***
Now, none of Jesus\'s followers were with him at the time of his birth. So the account of his birth they are relating is second-hand at best here.
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
I would not say that \"all science is looked at as wrong.\" Just that lots of it needs to be questioned. I don\'t think the Earth is the center of the universe and I find the new class of planetoids kind of odd - but that does not mean that there are not other things out there with Pluto. Pluto may or may not be the last planet in the system - scientists still are not sure or at least don\'t seem to be. Back in my day, we knew that Pluto was the last planet. We had to know that to pass the test.
***
Sorry for the derail. Back to evolution....
The horse seems to have steadily increased in size through his fossils. Lots of other animals went through some sudden drastic changes (if my old textbooks were even close to correct) - animal A looks like animal A for a very long time then animal A suddenly becomes extinct - animal B suddenly appears.
Now man has been around only a blink of the geologic eye, but have we seen any species evolve to adapt in our time - yea moths that went from black to white (micro evolution) but any new species suddenly show up (macro evolution)? All I ever hear about is species becoming extinct. Where is the mutant that is supposed to come in and fill in the hole left in the ecosystem?
That doesn\'t mean they\'re allowed to be wrong
Btw, here\'s a creationist website for those who might be interested - harunyahya.com. The stuff on there is simply staggering!
Matthew 2:1 states Jesus was born in the time of Herod. Herod died in 4 BC. That date is not in dispute in anyway. There are multiple historical sources that corroborate it. Later in Matthew 2, according to the dates the wisemen give him, Herod has all male children age 2 and under killed. If Matthew were accurate, that would put Jesus\' birth at sometime between 4-6 BC. After Herod dies, Archelaus becomes ruler, and rules for a decade. Archelaus is exiled, Quirinius becomes governor and that is when the census occurs, in 6 AD. Luke 2:1 clearly states the census occurred under Quirinius and Matthew 2:21 clearly acknowledges that Archelaus ruled following Herod. That leaves either a 10-12 year discrepancy or, possibly, the longest labor ever. This theory also explains the perpetual virginity of Mary, since after giving birth to a 12 year old attempting intercourse would be an exercise in futility.
The date is not the only issue. Matthew and Luke tell entirely different, incompatible stories about Jesus\' birth and childhood.
Luke has a mass of Angels, the glory of God shining, and shepherds. Matthew has none of that, but has wise men appear up to 2 years after the fact and has Herod slaughter all the baby boys in Bethlehem. You\'d think something like that slaughter would have made at least a local impression, but surprisingly, the people of Nazareth (60 miles from Bethlehem) don\'t seem to remember anything special about the time Jesus was born when he comes back home preaching (Matthew 13:53).
Luke (2:39-41) states that Jesus\' family returns to Galilee, Jesus grows up in Nazareth, and his family travels to Jerusalem every year. Matthew (2:19-21) says Jesus\' family fled to Egypt and didn\'t return to Judea until after both Herod and Archelaus had ceased to rule, more than a decade later. Annual local trip v. cowering in fear for over a decade.
Mark, the earliest gospel, makes zero mention of Jesus\' birth. Matthew and Luke both are dated to around 75-85 AD (from off the top of my head). You have nearly a century go by with absolutely no detail and then you get two very, very different accounts. From an accuracy standpoint, the best case scenario is that one of the accounts is correct, which leaves the unfortunate biproduct of the competing story being entirely inaccurate. From a less dogmatically restrained viewpoint, the most plausible explanation is that both accounts are legendary and would fall into the same general category as later 2nd-4th century apocryphal texts that make up other details of Jesus\' childhood.
Even given the necessary time frame at work in evolutionary theory, the sheer number of currently known species would lend itself to the idea that at least one of them would have shown evidence of macro evolution within the last hundred and fifty years.
And even if you believe otherwise, and again with reference to the sheer mass of available species today, it would seem that the fossil record involving \'transitional species\' should be overwhelming. In fact, every modern animal should be able to be traced back to a transitional species in the fossil record. And yet, even evolutionists agree that while the record isn\'t completely devoid of possible transitional entities, they are conspicuously rare.
demonherald
New member
@Airhead..I get your musing and well it\'s a tricky one but there is some evidence in a sense ..kind of the start of the evolutionary process since study started....no new species being formed I can recollect but it wouldn\'t surprise me if there was.There\'s so much that is still unknown
usually in the form of local populations and their variations .. I mentioned it earlier but one that sticks out in my head here in the UK is hedgehogs.. studies have shown that populations near major cities and roads have longer legs and lighter bodies than their countryside bretheren .. meaning they are slightly faster and therefore more likely to survive and this has led to the genes for this \"mutation\" becoming dominant in populations in those areas.
Also as I know you like Fishing ....Pike..... In waters where the main population is smaller fast moving fish (Like game fisheries)pike are in general slimmer in profile particularly the head, whereas those in fisheries with larger deeper bodied fish (like coarse fisheries) have developed larger broader heads,,, There are tons of examples like this and it doesn\'t take too much of a stretch to imagine that moving forward a million years and digging up fossil records of today these will be considered different species???
usually in the form of local populations and their variations .. I mentioned it earlier but one that sticks out in my head here in the UK is hedgehogs.. studies have shown that populations near major cities and roads have longer legs and lighter bodies than their countryside bretheren .. meaning they are slightly faster and therefore more likely to survive and this has led to the genes for this \"mutation\" becoming dominant in populations in those areas.
Also as I know you like Fishing ....Pike..... In waters where the main population is smaller fast moving fish (Like game fisheries)pike are in general slimmer in profile particularly the head, whereas those in fisheries with larger deeper bodied fish (like coarse fisheries) have developed larger broader heads,,, There are tons of examples like this and it doesn\'t take too much of a stretch to imagine that moving forward a million years and digging up fossil records of today these will be considered different species???
No Such Agency
New member
Evolutionary biologists certainly don\'t agree that transitional forms are \"conspicuously rare\", if you\'re going to say things like that please cite evidence (a News and Views review article from Nature would be perfect).
At any rate, every time scientists (I refuse to use the term \"evolutionists\" since it\'s the same as saying \"gravityists\") discover some new, TRANSITIONAL fossil, that clearly shows kinship to ancestral and descendant groups, the evolution naysayers either say \"not transitional enough\" or they say \"well where\'s the one between THAT and the other frog/lizard/bird/whatever\". It\'s called moving the goalposts. If you read anything about the subject...
AND HERE IS A HANDY LINK
... the idea of transitional fossils is covered exhaustively. I don\'t expect you to change your mind on this subject, but at least stop rehashing creationism\'s most baseless talking points.
Sorry about the delayed reply - I\'ve been too busy with work!
I have heard a bit about the theories behind the evolutionary advantages of altruism, though I would have to track down the sources.
One theory is that it arose among pack animals and early primitive humans as a method of promoting survival of ones \"clan\". Early on, such packs of animals/humans/whatever were likely to share a significant amount of genetic material (inbreeding), so even if you sacrifice yourself to help another, you are still in essence promoting survival of your genes as the individual you helped is closely related to you. Less relevant in humans now since we are so widespread and genetically diverse, but it is still largely ingrained in our behavior to help others who might otherwise be defenseless.
Another theory is that there isn\'t true altruism. Helping others isn\'t truly a selfless act as there is the expectation that you will be helped in return in the future. Simply put, \"I scratch your back, you scratch my back\".
There is a whole field of \"evolutionary psychology\" tackling these types of issues - interesting stuff to say the least.
Aliengod3
Active member
I have a couple of parrots and as stupid as this my sound I see alot of similarities between the way my birds run around as I do when I watch shows describing dinosaurs. Plus I watched a show recently that talked about the discovery of a two different fossils: one was a bird with dinosaur-like features and the other was a dinosaur with bird-like features. Features including feathers and the like.
So I believe in evolution. Plus there is the general understanding that multi celled organizisms are large groupings of single celled organizms working together. If that is not convincing I do not know what is.
So I believe in evolution. Plus there is the general understanding that multi celled organizisms are large groupings of single celled organizms working together. If that is not convincing I do not know what is.
junior elf
New member
Aliengod, I can see from your name that you have information that us lesser beans to do not. I bet that those parrots are so that you can run an experiment on them and see how life on earth works lol.
Theomar Pius
New member
Infidel Castro
New member
Science = constantly tested, disputed and peer-reviewed. Also mostly right on many testable areas of life and its development.
Religion = mostly wait for a slight chink in science\'s armour, jump on the error, ignore the fact that that an error has shown up a more viable direction and has actually moved on by a long distance and covered even more ground.
C\'est la vie!
Religion = mostly wait for a slight chink in science\'s armour, jump on the error, ignore the fact that that an error has shown up a more viable direction and has actually moved on by a long distance and covered even more ground.
C\'est la vie!
Aliengod3
Active member
I grew up catholic but I have a hard time believing that some dude decided that he was going to make a large space filled with stars and planets. A theory that has no proof and is justified by people with \"faith\".
Science has more physical proof.
I hada conversion with my GF, at school, about how tarantulas use blood pressure to move their body segments in order to create movement and not muscles and thought it was very interesting. A religious student overheard our conversation and began to say how it was amazing that such a complex creature could exist. Hinting at the idea that the only way for it to have happened was through divine hands. I listened to her belief but her comments were in one ear and out the other.
It is just amazing that two people can have two very different beliefs on how a tarantula is capable of creating movement. Personally I will stick to what the scientific facts demonstrate in the tarantula books I have and leave the intellegent design to the people who believe that the big GW employee in the sky painted an arachnid with their 3/0 kolinsky brush, that received a 9.5 on coolmini, and said to it, \"I give you life, painting\".
Science has more physical proof.
I hada conversion with my GF, at school, about how tarantulas use blood pressure to move their body segments in order to create movement and not muscles and thought it was very interesting. A religious student overheard our conversation and began to say how it was amazing that such a complex creature could exist. Hinting at the idea that the only way for it to have happened was through divine hands. I listened to her belief but her comments were in one ear and out the other.
It is just amazing that two people can have two very different beliefs on how a tarantula is capable of creating movement. Personally I will stick to what the scientific facts demonstrate in the tarantula books I have and leave the intellegent design to the people who believe that the big GW employee in the sky painted an arachnid with their 3/0 kolinsky brush, that received a 9.5 on coolmini, and said to it, \"I give you life, painting\".
\"The tarantula spears its prey with its long fangs and kills it with its poison. The spider then crushes its prey with its powerful mouthparts. The tarantula produces a special fluid which reduces the prey to a pulpy liquid which the spider can absorb.\"
Clear evidence that it was designed by a benevolent, loving creator.
Clear evidence that it was designed by a benevolent, loving creator.
Infidel Castro
New member
That\'s quite amusing!
