Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[mgb_phys]

All 'evidence' for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

You can't post messages which are only a quote

 

[The Dagda]

You can't post messages which are only a quote

Heretic. Who can question the words of the divine?

 

[z0rn dawg]

Couldn't the Bible be more of an allegory than a real story? The story of God creating the universe in 6 days disagrees with common belief...DUH! However, the order of the creation of life agrees with modern belief. He created sea creatures, then land animals, then humans. Works with modern theory I think.

 

[mgb_phys]

Couldn't the Bible be more of an allegory than a real story?

Yes - except when it talking about gays, then it must be taken literally word for word (assuming a chosen translation)

The story of God creating the universe in 6 days disagrees with common belief...DUH!

God (blessed be his noodly appendage) created the world in 4 days - thus also inventing the long weekend.

However, the order of the creation of life agrees with modern belief. He created sea creatures, then land animals, then humans. Works with modern theory I think.

God (the one with the white beard, not the noodly appendages) got a few things wrong.

Day One
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space. No stars, no sun, no moon, no planets (except for Earth) = wrong
Light = wrong light was first
Day and night, first indication that the planet is rotating = Wrong the nebula rotated before forming planets.

Day Two
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts

Day Three
Dry land and oceans = after seperating the water?
System to water the entire land = rain came after oceans, so what fileld oceans
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit. = flowering plants most postdate dinosaurs

Day Four
Sun = rather older than earth
Moon = younger than Earth but older than daffodils
Stars and other planets = nope

Day Five
Water creatures of all kinds. = Water creatures were pretty much first
Birds = From dinosaurs, and should be before most flowering plants

Day Six
Land animals = after birds? So where did dinosaurs come from
Man = Yeah finally
Woman = there's going to be trouble over that one

 

[WhoWee]

This discussion only encourages me to write that book I keep threatening..."I Believe, Yet Darwin Was Right".

Basically, God is an alien (not FROM this planet) and man (original aliens) came here from somewhere else (don't know where - far, far away). At some point breeding with monkeys happened (maybe became necessary) and the rest is in our textbooks...starting to sound like a best seller?

This argument allows EVERYONE to be a little bit right and nobody is 100% wrong...again, starting to sound good?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them? If you ask me, it's a lot easier to believe that the one story the preacher is feeding me is the hoax, rather than every single other thing in all of the universe except for that one story.

It is an essential aspect of biblical teaching. Recall that Peter was tested three times before the cock crowed. The apostles were tested. Jesus was tested and tempted by Satan. By some beliefs, the whole point of our existence is that we are being tested; that we are here to make a choice. And some would argue that the most important words spoken by Jesus were "let not my will, but your will be done" - surrendering to the divine plan.

Whether life, the universe and everything is a hoax or not is immaterial - what is true is that even if it were, science does a pretty darn good job of explaining how things work within this hoax. If you don't want to believe evolution because of this hoax nonsense, then you ought not to also believe that computers work or that gravity might have something to say about your well-being if you walk out of your sixth floor window.

If you are worried about your immortal soul and you believe that your salvation is dependent on accepting the "word of God" literally, then the science is what's irrelevent. Understanding science has no bearing on your salvation.

How do I know that the bible is the word of God? Easy; God made sure that happened. It doesn't matter who actually wrote the Bible.

I'm not defending these beliefs but I understand them. And from a philosophical point of view there is logic to their madness. Again, once you accept the notions of omniscience and omnipotence - the notion of an all-powerful God - the rest is moot. Almost any belief can be rationalized.

 

[baywax]

This discussion only encourages me to write that book I keep threatening..."I Believe, Yet Darwin Was Right".

Basically, God is an alien (not FROM this planet) and man (original aliens) came here from somewhere else (don't know where - far, far away). At some point breeding with monkeys happened (maybe became necessary) and the rest is in our textbooks...starting to sound like a best seller?

This argument allows EVERYONE to be a little bit right and nobody is 100% wrong...again, starting to sound good?

The past has been recorded in such great detail that we will eventually know everything about where we came from, when and how etc... at some point... in the future. We simply have to discover how to best use the evidence to tell the story.

Speculation is not going to help much... unless it's used as motivation to do more research into our origins. So far we have found common links with an ancestor from around 7 million years ago in Kenya.

Beyond this sort of work, physics can help a lot in our search to understand our constitutional make up.

Beyond physics there is only poetry and prose and fluffy pictures of a big guy watching over every grain of sand and every child, woman and man. I think this is a misleading picture though... it is spawned by the fact that everything in nature is connected by overlapping event horizons. This may or may not be better explained in Chaos Theory, I'd have to read up on it.

 

[z0rn dawg]

God (the one with the white beard, not the noodly appendages) got a few things wrong.

Day One
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space. No stars, no sun, no moon, no planets (except for Earth) = wrong
Light = wrong light was first
Day and night, first indication that the planet is rotating = Wrong the nebula rotated before forming planets.

Day Two
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts

Day Three
Dry land and oceans = after seperating the water?
System to water the entire land = rain came after oceans, so what fileld oceans
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit. = flowering plants most postdate dinosaurs

Day Four
Sun = rather older than earth
Moon = younger than Earth but older than daffodils
Stars and other planets = nope

Day Five
Water creatures of all kinds. = Water creatures were pretty much first
Birds = From dinosaurs, and should be before most flowering plants

Day Six
Land animals = after birds? So where did dinosaurs come from
Man = Yeah finally
Woman = there's going to be trouble over that one

The Bible was written by humans, mortals, men, NOT by God. Humans are not infallable and made a mistake when writing it down. I just read the beginning of Genesis and realize that some things are off, but that's due to men not God.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Bible was written by humans, mortals, men, NOT by God. Humans are not infallable and made a mistake when writing it down. I just read the beginning of Genesis and realize that some things are off, but that's due to men not God.

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they get only 2% right?

 

[WhoWee]

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they only get 2% right?

It's a good thing Biden wasn't involved (30% margin of error).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they get only 2% right?

According to which religion?

 

[WhoWee]

The past has been recorded in such great detail that we will eventually know everything about where we came from, when and how etc... at some point... in the future. We simply have to discover how to best use the evidence to tell the story.

Speculation is not going to help much... unless it's used as motivation to do more research into our origins. So far we have found common links with an ancestor from around 7 million years ago in Kenya.

Beyond this sort of work, physics can help a lot in our search to understand our constitutional make up.

Beyond physics there is only poetry and prose and fluffy pictures of a big guy watching over every grain of sand and every child, woman and man. I think this is a misleading picture though... it is spawned by the fact that everything in nature is connected by overlapping event horizons. This may or may not be better explained in Chaos Theory, I'd have to read up on it.

So, you're willing to run with my theory until someone has a better idea to help us all get along? (I'm trying to lighten the discussion...not suggest an alternative theory)

 

[TVP45]

Yes - except when it talking about gays, then it must be taken literally word for word (assuming a chosen translation)


God (blessed be his noodly appendage) created the world in 4 days - thus also inventing the long weekend.


God (the one with the white beard, not the noodly appendages) got a few things wrong.

Day One
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space. No stars, no sun, no moon, no planets (except for Earth) = wrong
Light = wrong light was first
Day and night, first indication that the planet is rotating = Wrong the nebula rotated before forming planets.

Day Two
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts

Day Three
Dry land and oceans = after seperating the water?
System to water the entire land = rain came after oceans, so what fileld oceans
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit. = flowering plants most postdate dinosaurs

Day Four
Sun = rather older than earth
Moon = younger than Earth but older than daffodils
Stars and other planets = nope

Day Five
Water creatures of all kinds. = Water creatures were pretty much first
Birds = From dinosaurs, and should be before most flowering plants

Day Six
Land animals = after birds? So where did dinosaurs come from
Man = Yeah finally
Woman = there's going to be trouble over that one

mgb, Don't be starting that literal stuff unless you're willing to help me stone to death everybody wearing a cotton/polyester shirt.

 

[Emanresu56]

The Bible was written by humans, mortals, men, NOT by God. Humans are not infallable and made a mistake when writing it down. I just read the beginning of Genesis and realize that some things are off, but that's due to men not God.

Like how god separated light from darkness, eh? What's that supposed to mean?

 

[WhoWee]

Like how god separated light from darkness, eh? What's that supposed to mean?

It's probably symbolic...maybe cognitive thought?

 

[Gokul43201]

According to which religion?

According to z0rn dawg.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's probably symbolic...maybe cognitive thought?

Symbolic? Does this sound symbolic too?

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

What are Day and Night supposed to symbolize then?

 

[russ_watters]

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they get only 2% right?

Perhaps more to the point, how does god even explain such things as science to people who have no concept whatsoever of what it is/how it works? How do you explain cosmology to someone 6000 years ago who doesn't know where the sun goes at night?!

 

[Gokul43201]

An omnipotent god?

 

[russ_watters]

An omnipotent god?

Well supposedly, god made a choice to let people be people, which would seem to preclude suddenly imbuing them with such knowledge...though I guess since that doesn't happen until the next book, he could have made Genesis an Encyclopedia Galactica. Hmm, maybe that explains what happened to the library of Alexandria...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to z0rn dawg.

That would be an appeal to his specific beliefs. For him to engage in that discussion would be a violation of the guildelines. Also, given that theologions have debated these questions for centuries, it's hardly fair to base a discussion on one person's opinion. Much like beliefs about science, the average person's religious beliefs are based on the teachings of the high priests [elders, leaders, etc], which are usually based on centuries worth of debate that most people know very little about.

 

[rcgldr]

The fact that "all living things have common factors" does not translate into "all living things have a common ancestor".

Is there any way to know if the creation of life was single event, instead of many events at different times in different environments?

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

How do senses, such as touch, sight, and hearing evolve? If somehow a life form with light sensing nerves but no brain function to recoginize light or vice versa is created, how does that life form have any advantage over any other life form with no sight at all? Wouldn't the extra but useless partial sensory functions be an overhead and detriment to such a life form?

Assuming that evolution and macro-speciation exists, is it due to a flaw (random) or feature (design or inherent constraint) of liviing things?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well supposedly, god made a choice to let people be people, which would seem to preclude suddenly imbuing them with such knowledge...

Part of the divine plan that we aren't supposed to understand.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact that "all living things have common factors" does not translate into "all living things have a common ancestor".

Is there any way to know if the creation of life was single event, instead of many events at different times in different environments?

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

How do senses, such as touch, sight, and hearing evolve? If somehow a life form with light sensing nerves but no brain function to recoginize light or vice versa is created, how does that life form have any advantage over any other life form with no sight at all? Wouldn't the extra but useless partial sensory functions be an overhead and detriment to such a life form?

Assuming that evolution and macro-speciation exists, is it due to a flaw (random) or feature (design or inherent constraint) of liviing things?

According to the high priests and my lowly understanding of "the word", all life on Earth can be traced back to a common ancestor through DNA. Whether we have direct evidence for this or assume it to be true based on compelling evidence, I'm not sure. I would have to go to science church and ask.

 

[z0rn dawg]

Perhaps more to the point, how does god even explain such things as science to people who have no concept whatsoever of what it is/how it works? How do you explain cosmology to someone 6000 years ago who doesn't know where the sun goes at night?!

Exactly. How can you give a detailed explanation of the universe to someone 5000 years ago...or even 500 years ago? It wouldn't happen.

That would be an appeal to his specific beliefs. For him to engage in that discussion would be a violation of the guildelines. Also, given that theologions have debated these questions for centuries, it's hardly fair to base a discussion on one person's opinion. Much like beliefs about science, the average person's religious beliefs are based on the teachings of the high priests [elders, leaders, etc], which are usually based on centuries worth of debate that most people know very little about.

The Bible acting as an allegory is one interpretation. If you look at it that way, it could explain evolution (or at least the order). Sea creatures, land animals, then humans. I don't think that anyone can compare the Bible to modern science as it was written thousands of years ago. Plus the Bible is extemely vague and can basically mean whatever you want it to mean.

As for evolution, I wouldn't say that it's proven, so it is only a theory right? A theory becomes fact when it's 100% proven. The fact is that evolution is not 100% proven. No one knows where man came from. (Last time I checked, some company in the UK would pay you $250,000 if you found out). There are other oddities in nature that don't make sense either. For it to be banned in a school is a bit extreme though.

 

[vivesdn]

The fact that "all living things have common factors" does not translate into "all living things have a common ancestor".

Is there any way to know if the creation of life was single event, instead of many events at different times in different environments?

True, but at the same time it is unlikely that life appeared in many events and at the end all living beings share the same architecture.

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

Both trends are observed.

How do senses, such as touch, sight, and hearing evolve? If somehow a life form with light sensing nerves but no brain function to recoginize light or vice versa is created, how does that life form have any advantage over any other life form with no sight at all? Wouldn't the extra but useless partial sensory functions be an overhead and detriment to such a life form?

There are eye structures that are already present on certain bacteria.
DNA is much longer than needed for just coding the information. There are extensive areas apparently useless, but useless as they are it is possible to insert fragments of DNA, sometimes carried by viruses, sometimes accidentally duplicated, etc. It is no just simple mutations that drive evolution.

Assuming that evolution and macro-speciation exists, is it due to a flaw (random) or feature (design or inherent constraint) of liviing things?

Evolution and speciation is an inherent feature of life. No matter if it appeared as a replicating microenvironment, as a replicating molecule or as a complete cell as designed on a lab (God's lab?), its key point is the possibility to multiply in nearly exact copies. And nearly exact is important and useful as a living being that was able to multiply in exact copies would have disappeared long time ago as it is not able to adapt (as a species) to environment changes.

 

[WhoWee]

Symbolic? Does this sound symbolic too?

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

What are Day and Night supposed to symbolize then?

If aliens landed at the White House and explained they traveled a great distance and have been watching our planet and our development for a long time and that their civilization was millions of years old. Then they further described their belief in God based on BELIEF ONLY...no proof...would you question their belief?

This is a serious question.

 

[TVP45]

If aliens landed at the White House and explained they traveled a great distance and have been watching our planet and our development for a long time and that their civilization was millions of years old. Then they further described their belief in God based on BELIEF ONLY...no proof...would you question their belief?

This is a serious question.

I would assume that Obama had lost his race for a second term.

 

[WhoWee]

I would assume that Obama had lost his race for a second term.

It's probably the only way Obama would lose power...but notwithstanding, would YOU question the BELIEFS of an alien race millions of years old and technologically advanced?

Would they have an inherent greater level of creditability or would they be asked for proof of their BELIEFS?

 

[Gokul43201]

As for evolution, I wouldn't say that it's proven, so it is only a theory right? A theory becomes fact when it's 100% proven.

This is exactly the kind of ignorance about what a theory is that the title of this thread is parodying.

So, to answer your question: no, wrong.