Cockroaches and Evolution

[Corcaigh]

Seems to be the normal combination: religion, and he doesn't understand it. He does at least ask decent questions.

I understand. I was curious what angle he was coming from.

Rejecting evolution because you are told that it is in conflict with your faith is one thing.

Rejecting evolution because it doesn't seem to make sense is something else (e.g. a belief in irreducible complexity, not grasping the amount of time involved etc.)

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Good so far.

This is a lie too. The Earth is only 6,000 years old, so that should be 4000 BC. I think you've bought into that lying liar, Carbon Dating, without realizing it.

Please report to the nearest re-education center for a tune-up.

:rotflmao::rotflmao:

funny stuff!

[zoony]

They're already a super insect. Why would they change?

Animals only evolve if there is some advantage to doing so. So there is no reason that ****roaches would change since they have survived so well just as they are, and there is no guarantee that humans will ever get mutant powers ...

Why haven't they evolved laser beams on their head then, oh man who is so wise in the ways of science? :jerk:

[Zguy28]

Please report to the nearest re-education center for a tune-up.

I know a couple of cops who use the term tune-up. I guess that could be considered re-education as well. :laugh:

[Vicious]

****roaches are simply amazing and will outlast humans.

[Corcaigh]

Good so far.

Meh ... it was a far from complete list. He left out:

There are no transitional fossils

Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cat? No, then evolution is false.

Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

Why haven't monkeys evolved?

[edgun88]

ok...well if you're gonna ask those questions, I'll ask you one as well:

Why the hell would God make a ****roach?

:laugh: Thank you.

Evolution is real. Get over it people. There are so many different things that scientifically prove it.

Just go look at your dog. Did God make domesticated dogs? Hell no. Dogs evolved from wolves. Duh. :doh:

Show me one thing that religion can prove. Exactly. Nothing :laugh:

[WVUforREDSKINS]

:laugh: Thank you.

Evolution is real. Get over it people. There are so many different things that scientifically prove it.

Just go look at your dog. Did God make domesticated dogs? Hell no. Dogs evolved from wolves. Duh. :doh:

Show me one thing that religion can prove. Exactly. Nothing :laugh:

THis thread started with a good question and was answered pretty good.

I said some of the most crazy ubsurd things even used a 10,000 B.C. movie reference (which was inaccurate) because it was only a matter of time when creationist came in trying to dispute facts.

I have got to give them credit for not saying "well, according to the Bible.." because anytime someone uses a book that was written by man, years and years after jesus, rewritten by different kings several times in order to say what they wanted it to, then that person has lost the right to be credible.

Also, keep in mind how much dumber people were 2000 years ago.

And if someone has the balls come out and say it, say that basically all public schools are teaching a lie and that some of the smartest people are full of ish. Say that National Geographic is full of ish. Seriously why is this even a topic. On one hand you have The Bible and what it says...on the other hand you have..um..Facts!

BTW, The Catholic Church accepts evolution!!

Everything in nature is slowly ever changing, always changing, a long time ago there was a super continent called Pangea. Now that is a theory too but look at places like South America and how perfect. India over millions of years was on its own continental plate and shot up into Asia creating the Hymalyian mts. Everything on this planet is ever changing as this planet will continue to evolve for millions and millions of years. Homosapieans will most certainly not be here much longer.

If the life span of the earth was condensed into 24 hours humans would only be around for about a few seconds.

[One Shot]

Everything in nature is slowly ever changing, always changing, a long time ago there was a super continent called Pangea. Now that is a theory too but look at places like South America and how perfect. India over millions of years was on its own continental plate and shot up into Asia creating the Hymalyian mts. Everything on this planet is ever changing as this planet will continue to evolve for millions and millions of years. Homosapieans will most certainly not be here much longer.

If the life span of the earth was condensed into 24 hours humans would only be around for about a few seconds.

less than that, possibly milliseconds. And we are only expediting the process...our existence and development doesn't make sense because we supposedly progress to become more efficient and powerful (harsh word to use, but true) yet it all will only lead to one thing: our own destruction.

I don't know if our evolution will be natural now because we've become so advanced as a species that we may even have the ability to control it. And unless we have a complete change of mindset, we're on the path to bringing this place, along with everything it harvests, down.

[joeknows]

how does this work, exactly? you describe evolution as having a

"motivation." according to the theory, what would have "told" billions of ****roaches, all at once, to stop evolving from whatever they used to be, all towards the exact same goal? to me it sounds like yodas description of the force or something. looking around at living creatures today, i dont see any that look like they are "tweeners" - something in the process of changing from one Kind to another. Does evolutionary theory teach that every form of life on this planet has reached (or is close to reaching) its peak form of "perfection?" therefore we see no transitionary creatures?

i think i was reading jurassic park or some other michael crichton book and it pointed out that any evolutionary changes would have been prompted by changes in the environment - and changes in the environment are so "fast" that a species would have to completely adapt within just a few generations.

So if evolution took place slowly, life would not be able to change quickly enough to adapt to the changing environment. that life would die.

On the other hand, if the life evolved very quickly, then it would be something that we could probably observe and test very easily - for example - by slowly making a lake which teemed with life inhospitable. if there were thousands of species in the lake, according to evolution, atleast a couple of them should grow legs, start breathing fresh air and start walking on land, right?

Granted, that last example is very extreme and not to be taken literally, but do you get my point? how does evolutionary theory explain:

1) what prompts the change? for all life to be able to be "governed" by evolution, there should be a variant of some sort of "evolution gene" in all life, right? the life form would have to sense change and the gene would be "activated," right?

2) is the process "slow" (thousands/millions of years) or is it "fast" (hundreds or less)? in either case, we run into the problems i mentioned above.

3)why do we still have lower primates that, accross the globe, appear to be on the "same page" on the evolutionary scale? If different tribes of primates evolved differently, then atleast SOME of them should appear to be more or less advanced than others, correct? we should have cavemen SOMEWHERE right?

4)At what point did man become "intelligent" in the sense that he is now? if its any more than a few 10,000 of years, then we run into a population problem. there would be ALOT more humans on the planet than we are now. population growth simply doesnt allow for intelligent humans much more than a few 10,000s of years. unless for some reason, man was intelligent, yet to stupid to invent a wheel or fire until the past 10,000 years or so.

***I don't want to turn this into a debate, because the OP clearly stated that this was not to be that sort of thread. i'm merely interested in someone who is very familiar with these aspects of evolutionary theory to provide the answers. thanks!

just thought you might like to see these.........

exhibit A

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/1770388963_90b0d56bb7.jpg?v=0

[/url]

exhibit B

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/468260559_9bf9bc246f.jpg?v=0

[joeknows]

how about exhibit C?

http://www.byrdultrafly.com/snakehead.htm

[WVUforREDSKINS]

just thought you might like to see these.........

exhibit A

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/1770388963_90b0d56bb7.jpg?v=0

exhibit B

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/468260559_9bf9bc246f.jpg?v=0

I thought of the playtapus too.

I have no idea what the heck B is...

[Corcaigh]

just thought you might like to see these.........

And: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[techboy]

I have got to give them credit for not saying "well, according to the Bible.." because anytime someone uses a book that was written by man, years and years after jesus, rewritten by different kings several times in order to say what they wanted it to, then that person has lost the right to be credible.

I'm sorry, but on this topic, it is you that is not credible.

People who talk about the Bible being hopelessly corrupt, changed, or unreadable are as outside the mainstream of the scholarly field of textual criticism as Young Earth Creationists are outside of the mainstream of science.

The texts we can look at today are substantially identical to the texts as they were written, and where there are questions, they are generally minor, with no essential doctrine effected.

You can read more detail here, though I did not include this article, by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, who notes that

Once again the reader should be reminded of a point made earlier. Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.

So, you can reject the Bible if you like, but you can't do it on the grounds that we don't really know what the original said because it was "changed" or corrupted". Modern scholarship simply does not allow that option.

[DCSaints_fan]

just thought you might like to see these.........

exhibit A

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/1770388963_90b0d56bb7.jpg?v=0

exhibit B

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/468260559_9bf9bc246f.jpg?v=0

Be careful on that duck-billed platypus. Although its face looks similar to a duck its a superficial resemblance, its a mammal and its recent ancestors were mammals, you'd have to go all the way back to the to age of dinosaurs to get a common ancestor with a modern duck (a bird).

[WVUforREDSKINS]

I'm sorry, but on this topic, it is you that is not credible.

People who talk about the Bible being hopelessly corrupt, changed, or unreadable are as outside the mainstream of the scholarly field of textual criticism as Young Earth Creationists are outside of the mainstream of science.

The texts we can look at today are substantially identical to the texts as they were written, and where there are questions, they are generally minor, with no essential doctrine effected.

You can read more detail here, though I did not include this article, by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, who notes that

So, you can reject the Bible if you like, but you can't do it on the grounds that we don't really know what the original said because it was "changed" or corrupted". Modern scholarship simply does not allow that option.

There is lots of History in the Bible. I don't know anyone who denies that.

I was talking specifically about using the Bible as a basis to dismiss evolution or the absurd claim that it proves that evolution didn't/doesn't happen. Anyone who says that has no credibility whatsoever. And the world rolls their eyes at.

[joeknows]

Be careful on that duck-billed platypus. Although its face looks similar to a duck its a superficial resemblance, its a mammal and its recent ancestors were mammals, you'd have to go all the way back to the to age of dinosaurs to get a common ancestor with a modern duck (a bird).

yup it is in fact a mammal..... a mammal that lays eggs.... the ONLY mammal to lay eggs.....

i know what you are saying but how do we know how long evolution takes?

[techboy]

Show me one thing that religion can prove. Exactly. Nothing :laugh:

This comment is silly, unless you mean that religion can't prove anything scientifically, in which case I say, well, duh.

The reason this comment is silly is that there are a multitude of ways to prove something, and a multitude of ways to gain knowledge, and science is only one of them (and it may not even be the best of them).

For instance, let's say I want to know whether or not Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Please construct a repeatable experiment proving that.

What's that? You can't? Does that mean we can't know whether or not Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

Of course not. Obviously, this is an historical question, not a scientific one. And so science, while it can help (by, say, carbon dating an artifact or something), is ultimately useless in addressing this issue. We have to use the tools of history to address Julius Caesar.

The same goes for knowledge gained through philosophy, religion, logic, personal experience, and so on...

Some atheists that haven't really thought things all the way through try to put science on a pedestal as the only legitimate method of gaining knowledge, but such an idea is poorly conceived and ultimately self-defeating.

This is because science relies on repeatable experiments, and an underlying idea is that past results can predict future results. But, how do we know that? You certainly can't prove that with a repeatable experiment... :laugh:

No, even the most hard-core scientist is forced to rely upon philosophy and logic to provide the foundations for his craft. If we don't allow for any method of obtaining knowledge other than pure science, we slide into a world where nothing can be known or proven, since science cannot establish itself as true.

And thus, what you are doing here is commiting a category error, and demanding the wrong tool for the job.

Of course religion can't prove something scientifically. It's not science. Science and history and other disciplines can help cast light on the claims of religion (and vice versa), of course, but at the end of the day, religion is not science, and it should not be treated as such.

Oh... and why wouldn't God create a ****roach? If we postulate that blind evolution found a niche for it, why not God?

[joeknows]

So, you can reject the Bible if you like, but you can't do it on the grounds that we don't really know what the original said because it was "changed" or corrupted". Modern scholarship simply does not allow that option.

William Tyndale..........

conversation........OVER

[techboy]

There is lots of History in the Bible. I don't know anyone who denies that.

I was talking specifically about using the Bible as a basis to dismiss evolution or the absurd claim that it proves that evolution didn't/doesn't happen. Anyone who says that has no credibility whatsoever. And the world rolls their eyes at.

I was not addressing whether or not it makes sense to reject evolution on the basis of the Bible.

I wasn't even addressing the idea that true history can be found in the Bible (though it can).

I was specifically addressing your implication (and outright statement) that the Bible texts cannot be trusted in terms of accuracy because of repeated translations and changes, either accidental or intentional.

That is simply not true.

*EDIT* And I didn't touch on the implication that the texts were written long after the fact, which they weren't.

Basically, you hit one of my buttons. :laugh:

I know you've seen this all before, of course.

[techboy]

William Tyndale..........

conversation........OVER

What does William Tyndale have to do with anything?

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Tech, I know you know your Bible stuff a lot better than I do. I can't even hold a candle to you in a debate about the Bible. My main beef is with people who see evidence and say, "well that can't be true or else that means God is lying. And god wouldn't lie."

I was actually watching something about Gospels that were found in Egypt not so long ago and a Gospel according to "Que" or Qued or something like that. As well as a Gospel according to Thomas. Care to enlighten me about that? Because I was only told the main 4.

How come these weren't used?

[techboy]

Sure thing.

The following quotations are taken from Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, by Dr. Craig A. Evans.

First, on why the New Testament texts are considered to be the best sources of information about Jesus (pg.55):

Not only do the earliest New Testament Gospel sources date to the middle of the first century, Paul also refers to Jesus' teaching, to his words at the Last Supper, to his death and burial, and to his resurrection. This is important, for Paul, who was converted to the Christian faith in the 30s, knew some of the original disciples and apostles, such as Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. Consequently, the New Testament writings provide us with early information about Jesus. This is why writings believed to have originated in the first century, especially in the middle of the first century, are widely accepted as our best sources of information about the historical Jesus.

How do these compare to the Gnostic Gospels? From page 56:

When were the Gnostic Gospels and other extracanonical sources written? All of the Gnostic Gospels and extracanonical sources were written in the second century or later. Typical dates range from A.D. 140 to 160. Some scholars argue for earlier dates, such as 120 to 140 (and some argue for later dates). Although it is theoretically possible that early, reliable information about Jesus not found in the New Testament writings could be preserved in some of these second-century writings, it is not likely. This is why biblical scholars in the past have rarely appealed to writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mary for additional information about Jesus. These writings are viewed as simply too late- written at least one hundred years after the death of Jesus, or fifty to eighty years after the New Testament Gospels were written.

So what about the Gospel of Thomas specifically? From page 67:

Most of the codices that make up the Nag Hammadi Library have been dated to the second half of the fourth century, though of course many of the writings within these old books date to earlier periods. The codex that contains the Gospel of Thomas may date to the first half of the fourth century. In the case of the Gospel of Thomas itself we have the three Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus that date to the beginning and middle of the third century. One of the fragments may date as early as A.D. 200. Although almost all scholars concede that Thomas could have been composed as early as the middle of the second century, the evidence strongly suggests that Thomas was not composed before A.D. 175 or 180.

Why A.D. 175 or 180? From page 76-77

Let me make this emphatically clear: This is where all of the evidence takes us: (1) the association of the Gospel of Thomas with "Judas Thomas," (2) the arrangement and order of the sayings explained by hundreds of Syriac catchwords that link the sayings, and (3) the coherence of the readings in Thomas, which differ from the Greek New Testament Gospels, with the readings either in the Diatessaron or other Christian Syriac works from this period compellingly argue for a late-second-century Syrian origin of the Gospel of Thomas. In short, it is this flood of factors that point to the Eastern, Syriac-speaking church, a church that knows the New Testament Gospels primarily- perhaps exclusively- through Tatian's Diatessaron, a work not composed before A.D. 170 , that persuades me that the Gospel of Thomas does not offer students of the Gospels early, independent material that can be used for critical research into the life and teaching of Jesus. Reliance on this writing can only lead to a distorted portrait of the historical Jesus.

Please note, even if one does not accept Evans' strong arguments about Thomas' late dating, scholars still don't place it earlier than the mid-second century.

Perhaps now it is becoming more clear why the early church chose the 4 early Gospels and rejected the much later ones that did not accurately reflect their beliefs and traditions as passed down from Jesus and the apostles?

[Corcaigh]

I know you've seen this all before, of course.

TechBoy will come scuttling out like a ****roach with a long post on the authenticity of the bible.

[techboy]

TechBoy will come scuttling out like a ****roach with a long post on the authenticity of the bible.

The pressures of Extremeskins skeptics have forced me to evolve, and be more efficient via cut and paste.