another evolution thread... (page 2)

lovelylil

Hi TD,

Thank you for that response. This is not really my area of expertise so I am guessing I am using the wrong terminology. The bible does not explain everything in Science - rather it is written in a simple way for people to be able to understand. When I say "kind" I am not sure if "species" is the right corresponding word.

But let me ask you - aren't animals put into a certain classification? For instance all bears would be classified in the same group but within that group there are subgroups. We know there are panda bears, black bears, grizzly etc. What I was trying to say is the animals that are within the same group as scientists would place them - would be able to reproduce with any in the same group. Again, I am not sure I am using the right words but I think you can gather what I am saying. But I believe this is what the bible means by using the word "kind". Whatever classifications scientists use today would be modern, man-made terms and thus we will not find them in the bible. The bible is a religious book and not a science book so we should not expect it to answer Q's in this are.

My point was if science would put a cow and a Bison in the same group - they can reproduce. But a Bison could not reproduce with a horse for instance if they would be classified into different groups. I am not sure of all the groups, its been a while since I was in school. And these examples are not exact because like you said, or maybe it was AlanF, science in this area is still very new. I'm sure there are species not found or classified yet.

BTW: I am not against evolution. I believe that there is overwelming evidence that man is much older than most Christians believe. I am also not a new earth believer. I have no reason to doubt science in either of these areas.

The difficult thing I have to reconcile is that living matter came from complete nothing. Life from nothing is what I have trouble with. Other than that many people believe that evolution is the natural selection process, and adaptation process that God created so that life would flourish and change over time suited for the environment.

We now have intelligent design theory which I think shows that even some scientists believe there is an "intelligence" to life and our galaxy, etc. Some call this "IT" God, some call it nature, others do not know what to call it. Lilly

skeptic2

The difficult thing I have to reconcile is that living matter came from complete nothing. Life from nothing is what I have trouble with. Other than that many people believe that evolution is the natural selection process, and adaptation process that God created so that life would flourish and change over time suited for the environment.

We now have intelligent design theory which I think shows that even some scientists believe there is an "intelligence" to life and our galaxy, etc. Some call this "IT" God, some call it nature, others do not know what to call it.

You say life from nothing is a problem. Where does the universe come from? Where does your god come from?

Life from 'nothing' is a misnomer. Life has arisen out of the complexity of interactions of basic elements of the universe. So it's not life from nothing but life from the universe.

But your god from nothing, that's a real nothing.

I still don't understand how people find life arising from the universe hard to swallow, yet god from nothing sails by them as totally unnotable. Banging head on wall. Once you accept the existence of an invisible omnipotent being surely you can accept anything?

Here is what talk.origins says on the probability of abiogenesis ('life from no life'):

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

AlanF

loveylil, I think you need to read TD's post more carefully and answer his questions. He has already answered your question about reproduction within a "group" by asking pointed questions that will give you your answer. For example, the cheetah is popularly classified as a cat, but it cannot reproduce with any other cats. Is a cheetah a cat or not, according to the notion of ill-defined biblical "kinds"?

A good example of this fuzziness of classification is the evolutionary history of bears and dogs. Today, these are clearly in different Families (Ursidae, Canidae), and would certainly be classed as different "kinds" using biblical terminology. There are dozens of bear and dog species within those "kinds" (more properly, Families and Genera). But when you go back in time and examine fossil examples of bears and dogs, when you get back to about 35 million years there is no way to put the fossils in one category or the other. So paleontologists logically conclude that 35 million years ago there was only one "kind" (or Family, if you like) of this critter, which contained many species, and which set of populations gradually evolved into today's bears and dogs. Given that, would you classify these critters of 35 million years ago as bears, dogs, or what?

AlanF

lovelylil

Hi Sketic,

I see your point. Please do not think I am gullable. I should ask how and why did our planet get blessed by all the right chemical reactions so that life could not only appear but flourish? It does seem like the earth was made for us humans and animals and plant life. When I ask how did life come from nothing? - I am strictly speaking about life forms we humans see all around us, in our galaxy and on our planet. (I may even say in our dimension for scientists say there may be as many as 7 dimensions, but this is another thread)

God is a hard concept and I don't think anyone can explain it. We don't really know what God "is" exactly. Some believe He (for lack of a better term) is the "energy" that is responsible for all life and flows in and through and all around everything in the universe. And that He is responsible for maintaining the balance of it all. Just because we say "he" does not mean God is a "he". "He" is a human term. But I don't think we have a term to describe "God" exactly.

The bible was written by men (who claimed inspiration) so therefore it uses human terms to "try" to explain what God really is. Humans can only grasp things that their minds have a concept for grasping. Lilly

skyking

I have not read the post before me yet. You and everyone including myself that does not believe that LIFE came from nothing have one huge problem to over come. We have to believe this because how else could you explain GOD? Is not the same leap of faith happen for creationist as well as evolutionist?

Evolutionist believe life came from non-life. Creationist believe the same because non-life is where GOD came from. So I don't take much merit when creationist like myself state that life begot life. This is B.S. because that is what we have to believe in order to believe in GOD.

skeptic2

I should ask how and why did our planet get blessed by all the right chemical reactions so that life could not only appear but flourish? It does seem like the earth was made for us humans and animals and plant life.

This logic is known as the 'Goldilocks fallacy'. Paleogeekgirl does a good job here of describing the fallacy:

TD

Lovelylil:

What I was trying to say is the animals that are within the same group as scientists would place them - would be able to reproduce with any in the same group. Again, I am not sure I am using the right words but I think you can gather what I am saying. But I believe this is what the bible means by using the word "kind".

I think you're on the right track, but the problem lies in the sheer number of exceptions to the "Rule." It makes it impossible to come up with a working definition of the term "Kind" (As it is used by Creationists) that is accurate or consistent.

skeptic2

This is a great reminder of how big our universe actually is:

Hubble looks further than ever before

Given the size and complexity of our universe, that self-replicating molecules arise from molecular interactions on a planet is no long shot, you might even consider it pretty much guaranteed to happen somewhere. How many times it has happened we don't know. Give that self-replicating molecule long enough and eventually the complexity of the interactions will increase. And eventually, way down the line, you have me typing on this keyboard - a multi-cellular dna propagation machine.

lovelylil

AlanF,

I am not a scientist and as I said the bible is a simple book. It is not a science book. How can I tell you if the bible says "kind" what it meant by this term exactly? Or, if a cheetah is really a cat or not? I don't study animals. I can't really be sure that kind means anything other than something simple as stated in the bible meaning : a cat would be a different "kind" of animal than a bear. The bible does not explain any more than this on the matter. And why should it? It was not written as a science book for scientists. Whichever group scientists today decide to put the animals in, doesn't matter. You guys know exactly what I mean when I say they reproduce according to their kinds. I do not need to understand ALL the different animal classifications to understand this simple point.

As we know we have never seen a domestic cat give birth to a dog. I think by this simple example you understand what I am saying. You are trying to get me into word games or to answer Q's I cannot Nor am I saying I can answer every scientific Q's. Please go back and read my posts again. They are so simple anyone can understand it.

** I think the confusion is you all think I am saying that God created all the kinds of animals we see on the earth today back "in the beginning" of the creation of earth. That is not what I am saying. I believe in evolution in that if God made two birds 35 million years ago - from those two would have come forth the variety of birds we see today. Can we say the variety of bird "species" we see today? I am not anti-evolution. Man has evolved over time and we know by the fossil record and I believe animals have evolved also. Believe me I am not going to give you some hogwash that Noah took every kind of animal we have on earth today on the ark with him.

That being said, as far as classifying animals, this is not my area of expertise. The classifications scientists use today are modern terms and concepts. Why do you expect them to be in the bible? I am not a biologist or scientist. I am writer. Lilly

lovelylil

skeptic,

thanks for that article. I reminds me of the age old Q - what came first the chicken or the egg?

Answer - It depends on who you ask. Lilly

another evolution thread...

Share this