Quote of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on August 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points. This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do. It’s a continuous self-testing process.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
F15mech:
Are you not familiar with the concept of a Simile?
In that case, let me expand:
It’s illogical to state that just because Homo habilis and Homo erectus co-existed, this somehow proves that one could not have developed from the other. In fact, there are multiple examples of similar things occurring. There’s no doubt that today’s dogs are descendants of wolves, yet wolves and dogs co-exist today and will continue to co-exist for the foreseeable future. There is nothing in the theory of evolution which states that a successful descendant species must immediately supplant it’s predecessor. In fact, it pretty much guarantees the exact opposite – an originator species and a descendant species MUST co-exist for quite a while. We know that homo sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalis co-existed, and probably even interbred, whereas you seem to seem to believe that homo sapiens should have immediately replaced neanderthalis. Maybe “God” can make species appear and disappear overnight, but evolution doesn’t work that way.
c6gunner on August 10, 2007 at 7:45 AM
So Conservatives and Liberals went to war even that long ago? I could have told them that the two species coexisted and still do.
Alan Colmes is available for study every night as a modern Neanderthal.
Hening on August 10, 2007 at 8:19 AM
Well I can sit here in my dining room and see ‘all the kingdoms of the earth’ on the net (or on Cable).
Perhaps Satan has broadband.
CrazyFool on August 10, 2007 at 8:22 AM
I wholeheartedly agree the Bible is NOT a scientific text, rather it gives us
1) A rough history of God’s people.
2) His values and morals He wants us to have.
3) An insight into who he is. (Yes He is a persona)
Some basic points, however:
1. The three basic elements of physics are time, energy and matter. These are also the first three things mentioned in the Bible.
2. Micro evolution occurs and it must for us to adapt and survive, but Macro evolution is shaky science at best. Go modify someones DNA and you generally see sterility or mental retardation.
3. No evidence of abiogenesis has never, repeat never even remotely duplicated in any lab. We haven’t even reached the 0.001% mark. However this is the ‘science’ which trumps belief.
4. Human DNA is amazingly complex. To think such a thing could be random is um unscientific:
DavidM on August 10, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Knowing that Satan is an evil twerp, he probably had dial-up and Jesus was like “You’re kidding. You have infinite access to time, space, and rich dead sinners, and you’re too f*’in cheap to upgrade from dial-up? Screw you, Satan. God has Hi-Speed DSL with VOIP.”
BKennedy on August 10, 2007 at 8:40 AM
Having read the above comments, I am no longer wondering just how Christopher Hitchens has become so popular. With all due respect, if the above comments were translated into Pashtu, this could pass for a Taliban convention. Everybody’s a genius, everybody’s knows everything. Everybody who disagrees is livestock stupid. Science doesn’t know absolutely everything, so scientists are all fraudsters with a satanic agenda. Religion can’t prove a single damn thing, so believers are all knuckle-dragging limb-swingers.
“The less you know, the more you believe.”
thejackal on August 10, 2007 at 8:41 AM
Human beings — many of us believe our intellect and reason put us head and shoulders above the rest of the animal kingdom.
However, do people too often exaggerate their distinctiveness? Especially when we compare ourselves to our closest evolutionary kin — the great apes. They are primates like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, which according to recent genetic studies, share between 97 and 99 percent of their DNA with human beings.
kiakjones on August 10, 2007 at 8:53 AM
I understand the concept, the part that skews it is the high mountain bit. It suggests that from a high mountain you can see the entire earth.
csdeven on August 10, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Okay, here’s one for everyone. Evolution IS creation. The biggest mistake I have ever seen in religion is the tendency to put God in man’s terms. How long is a day to God? Who knows? But the tendency is to say it’s 24 hours.
Now, how do we know evolution wasn’t God’s plan all along? And don’t say anything about God telling someone to work for 6 days then rest on the 7th. When God talked to man, he did so in man’s terms so he would be understood. So God could have conceivably taken millions or even billions of years in man’s terms to create the earth and everything on it. But the Bible states God took 6 days. That would be 6 GOD days, not man days.
Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Your point is that this really doesn’t prove anything.
Furthermore, the bible doesn’t talk about a Homo habilis and a Homo erectus. So to say that this so-called science proves anything with regard to the Bible requires a huge jump in logic. The Bible story isn’t wrong just because it doesn’t address every scientific point of debate.
As far as proving that one humanoid is related to another, he doesn’t do that either. What he offers is at best an observed coincidence, but absolutely no proof of any cause and effect relating the two.
The real point is for us to understanding that observed coincidence doesn’t necessarily prove anything.
Lawrence on August 10, 2007 at 9:27 AM
The answer is reflected in how you argue the point. The issue is that God did create in His own terms, not in mans.
What you are doing is exactly what you are arguing against, trying to define God’s terms in your understanding. The point is that the Bible says one day. The terminology used by those who penned this definition is very specifically a 24 your period.
The first thing God created was day and night. The sun to rule the day and stars to rule the night… not coincidentally, this is how we humans measure time. Since God created time (what we humans define as time) then it would be no problem for God to create the rest of the universe in 6 days.
There are no contradictions within the Biblical account of what happened. The contradictions are between our human desires to prove the Bible wrong in spite of God’s omnipotent ability to do things we can’t as humans fully understand.
Lawrence on August 10, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Many in the evolution crowd often like to deride those who don’t subscribe to their theory saying, “Well, creationism is just based on faith, not science.”
Speaking as a Christian evangelical creationist, I think it takes more faith to believe the evolution theory than it does to believe “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”
CP on August 10, 2007 at 10:06 AM
The “97-99 percent similar DNA” argument would indeed be relevant and applicable here if a human person was defined solely in terms of matter (“matter being reducible to biology or energy or physics or whatever Richard Carrier at Internet Infidels says) alone.
That is, if the ontological constitution of a human person is defined as materialistic in nature (thus denying the immaterial soul), then the comments of kiakjones would be “right on and accurate.”
I humbly submit that the human ontological constitution (that is, “what makes up a human person?”) is defined as both body (matter) and soul (immaterial part). The immaterial part, the soul, provides rationality which makes human persons different in kind from all other animals.
This dualistic philosophy of a human person, not only defeats the “97-99 percent similar DNA’ argument, but also, I respectfully believe, provides life-giving answers to pressing questions in bioetics and issues involving human dignity.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM
And who wrote the Bible? And where does it specifically say that it was a 24 hour period? You give credence to my point with this statement. I’m not saying you’re wrong. None of us truly know the Bible. But it was written by men in the terms they understood.
I believe God can do whatever He wants. There are no limits. The only limits there are are the ones man has tried to put on Him to better understand Him. Biblical interpretation is the reason there are various religions. Different people interpret the Bible differently.
For instance, I really enjoy the arguments over what race Jesus was. Jesus was a divine being. The Son of God. Who is to say that he couldn’t appear olive skinned to an Arabic person, Black to a black person or white to a white person. He could turn water to wine, feed the multitudes with a few loaves of bread, and cure the sick. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say he could make himself appear different to different people.
Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 10:52 AM
csdeven. As far as the high mt. goes, it could be this: remember often times when ancient writings refer to the “world” they are not referring to what we now know as the world. They were referring to the known world at that time. When Alexander conquered the world, he did so without going to North and South America. What was known as the world was mainly the Mediterranean, North Africa, over to Spain, up into parts of the U.K., modern day Turkey, and modern day Iran and Iraq. It would not be unlikely if satan had taken Jesus to a high mt., just as the Bible records, and began pointing Jesus to the North, South, East, and West, naming the kingdoms of the earth (and at that time it was mainly Rome). Now, a little caveat is needed. All of my discussions on this thread have been in response to Christoph’s understandable comment that there are obvious inaccuracies in the Bible. I have been trying to point out that what may at first be an obvious inaccuracy, may turn out to simply be a misunderstanding on the readers part. This is what is known in Biblical studies as exegesis. To “draw out from Scripture that which it really communicates.” Biblical scholars take this very seriously and employ many scholastic disciplines. We study textual criticism to determine how the writings were transmitted to modern man. We study literary criticism to understand the form a particular book in the Bible is written in, so that we don’t read Proverbs as a we would a narrative. We also study many other Ancient Near Eastern manuscripts to find parallels between their writings and the Bible’s, All these disciplines, and many more including geology, archeology, etc., are used to understand Scripture, in a scholarly sense. Thus, unless these methods are used in determining if a inaccuracy is really there, one is making a determination without all the tools. This being said, I have no problem accepting miracles. The presence of miracles bear no logical contradictions even though, like all historical events, they are not empirically verifiable. I know this has been a long post, so please forgive me.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I swear, you are a man (or woman, cant tell by type) after my own heart!
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Interesting article, and while it demonstrates that organisms with variations in individual chromosomes can reproduce, it offers no evidence whatsoever of how organisms could evolve an additional chromosome. In fact that has not ever been actually been observed.
We don’t have to know everything in order to recognize that for the evolution of additional chromosomes to happen something radically different than what has been observed happening during normal sexual reproduction has to have happened multiple times. Anytime a theory makes assumptions that something quite extraordinary had to have happened at some point, and no explanation as to what or how this occurred, and in fact that particular event would need to violate everything we have observed to be true about how things normally occur, it is time to realize that the person putting forth the theory has now stepped into the realm of “we have no real clue of what actually happened.” Currently evolution is presented to the public as “The Truth” by a large number of people, and yet it definitely has areas where no known scientific explanation exists for what would have needed to have happened for it to actually be the truth. It would be nice if people presenting the Theory of Evolution recognized that it is indeed a theory and not established fact.
It doesn’t really matter what I believe when arguing about problems with the Theory of Evolution. The problems do exist, and while science might figure out what actually happened on day the current theory is seriously flawed. The real problem is that the scientific community has no other scientific explanation for the huge variety of life we know of, so no real discussion on the correctness of the Theory of Evolution is welcome, as the discarding of the Theory of Evolution leaves scientists with no explanation at all. I personally have no problem with saying, “well we just don’t know about that,” and accepting that while the Theory of Evolution is one possibility, it is also flawed, and that acceptance of it being “The Truth” requires an enormous amount of faith or an enormous amount of ignorance as to the ramifications of what actually had to have happened on a cellular and molecular level for it to be “The Truth.”
Buford on August 10, 2007 at 11:22 AM
And how is that? Do you have anything substantial to back this statement up, or are you just so secure in your superior knowledge that you feel no further explanation is needed? Or did you perhaps leave off the “/sarcasm” you meant to include at the end of this statement?
Buford on August 10, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I’ve always believed He has a sense of humor.
Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM
When I emailed this article to Allah yesterday, I hoped he would post it. Now, I’m ticked that I went to be early, and had stuff to do all morning, and am only now getting to the discussion. Bummer.
That said, though, I have to say that I read all of the comments, and I think that this is probably the best creation-evolution thread I have seen at Hot Air. For the most part very respectful. I especially appreciated posts by Weight of Glory, ColtsFan, and Christoph.
The only thing I’ll add, which no one will read because the front page has moved on to other things, is that the original quote is disingenuous. It is paradigmatic of the arrogance that I perceive from scientific rationalism, assuming that either it has all of the answers, or is in the process of refining – all the while religion is made up and never self-checking. This is simply incorrect. Theological studies are in a constant process of refinement, or, if you will, reformation. It is what theological students do. In fact, my doctoral studies center upon a re-evaluation of theological categories. Theology is in a constant state of evaluation and reforming. Just because this is not always apparent in “popular evangelicalism,” does not mean that it is not the case.
nailinmyeye on August 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM
There are some of us who reread most of the posts to see if any interesting comments have been added.
A very well stated comment. Gives me something new to think about. Thank you.
Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
I do see that there are a few people still here.
nailinmyeye on August 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Yes! exactly! I’m still here, and given your first comment, I also wish that you had been in on this from the outset.
Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Thanks. I’m usually late to the party.
nailinmyeye on August 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Nailinmyeye,
Thank you very much for your kind comments above.
I usually re-check previous comments.
This is very true. There is a book that even documents this. I am at work, and so I cannot post comments now.
Very good summary. In the future, I would like to open up a thread at Lion of Judah-Journal on an article written by John Warwick Montgomery entitled, “The Theologian’s Craft.”
It is very thought-provoking, and similar in content to what you have just written.
Again, thanks, everybody, for your excellent comments above.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Ha!!! Hehe.
Answer: Man, who also happens to be a die-hard, unrepentant Colts Fan.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Reread the posts — now I have to move on to other things!
Good day all… and God bless.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 2:47 PM
You’re talking about the likelihood of something occurring without really grasping the number of recursions involved. You’re also assuming that the observed effect is the intended effect, which is simply….well, dumb.
Look at it this way: the odds of you winning the lottery are astronomically low. Therefore, according to your logic, nobody could ever win the lottery. But if you were to make that conclusion, you would do so based on a faulty interpretation of statistics, and ignorance of how a lottery operates. In fact, people win the lottery all the time. That’s because the odds of any particular person winning are very low, while the odds of SOMEONE winning are pretty much 1:1.
Ditto for evolution. You look at one evolved trait and say “well, the odds of this occurring by accident are ten trillion to one!”. What you’re not taking into account is that:
1) The only reason you’re commenting on that particular trait is because it already exists. If it had never evolved, you wouldn’t be aware of it. Instead you’d be commenting on whatever other trait evolved instead.
2) You’re talking about an event which had millions of years to occur, in a population of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of beings. Just at random, let’s assume 200,000 individuals, each living for 30 years, over a 1 million year period. That comes out to more than 6 trillion recursions, or 6 trillion chances for evolution to make a change. That’s plenty of opportunity for a LOT of changes to occur.
So, in conclusion, no, I did not forget to include a “/sarcasm” tag, I simply didn’t have the time to explain things to you in detail as I was on my lunch break and had to return to work shortly. I hope this has clarified things for you.
c6gunner on August 10, 2007 at 6:31 PM
I can’t believe I missed it before.
C6 Gunner… you mean the C6 Medium Machine Gun that replaced the M-60?
We use it in Canadian Forces and have for years (I’m no longer in). That’s a wicked Gun and a joy to operate. In a training setting at least.
Hope you put it to good use.
Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 8:27 PM
That’s the one. I’m not actually a gunner any more; I started using this pseudonym back in ’99 when I first got my advanced machine gunners course, and it just stuck. Eventually I went for leadership training and ended up commanding a section of my own. But don’t worry, I still know how to put the ol’ girl to good use :)
c6gunner on August 11, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Sorry, your example of the lottery isn’t going to hold water. Since we are talking about evolving a chromosome by organisms that reproduce sexually if would be much more fair to compare this to a man and his wife both winning the lottery at different times by playing the exact same number both times. While you are almost guaranteed a winner every week, after one person wins you then have to have the spouse also win, and since the new chromosomes have to match up, they need to be playing the same numbers. Additionally to explain the variation on the number of chromosomes the same scenario would have to be repeated a number of different times.
Buford on August 11, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Your basic mistake seems to be assuming that species with different numbers of chromosomes cannot interbreed. This is false. For example, horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosomes, but can mate. Their offspring, a mule, is, ofcourse, sterile, but there’s no reason why all such matings would result in a sterile offspring, and in fact we have at least one example today where two species with different chromosome counts produce a fertile offspring.
Your “question” has been answered in detail many times before. That you are unaware of the answer tells me that you’re either incompetent, or lazy. Next time try googling. I typed a question into google just to ensure that my answer to you was phrased properly, and the very first result proved to be quite informative.
c6gunner on August 11, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2