The Evolution Conflict

[samabudhi]

Water under the bridge. (that is the right expression I hope?)

How does science know it took place 65 million years ago? With the certainty you proclaim? Actually, I have done some homework, I'm checking to see if you've really done yours.

I'm rusty on this, but this is what I remember. Radio carbon dating. I don't think this works for really old samples like 65 million years. They use a different method for that. They check the levels of a certain isotope to determine the substances age.
All atoms have what is called a half life. They are all slowly dieing, though extremely slowly. Uranium dies faster than most, and as such, releases a lot of energy which we harness. You can see the age of a sample by measuring the levels of a certain isotope (decaying atoms). They choose very particular elements though.

This is just one method however. They can also see at what level in the earth fossils were found. Annual rains deposit sediment in different amounts at the bottom of rivers for example. They can count the number of years the deposit has been building for, and, instead of counting 65 million, extrapolate the age simply by measuring the depth. Like counting rings of a tree.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Water under the bridge. (that is the right expression I hope?)

It is, and thank you.

I'm rusty on this, but this is what I remember. Radio carbon dating. I don't think this works for really old samples like 65 million years. They use a different method for that. They check the levels of a certain isotope to determine the substances age.

I am very pleased to see you did not ascribe carbon dating to fossils, for the reason you mentioned.

All atoms have what is called a half life. They are all slowly dieing, though extremely slowly. Uranium dies faster than most, and as such, releases a lot of energy which we harness. You can see the age of a sample by measuring the levels of a certain isotope (decaying atoms). They choose very particular elements though.

I also understand measuring isotopes and radioactive decay.

This is just one method however. They can also see at what level in the earth fossils were found. Annual rains deposit sediment in different amounts at the bottom of rivers for example. They can count the number of years the deposit has been building for, and, instead of counting 65 million, extrapolate the age simply by measuring the depth. Like counting rings of a tree.

This sounds plausible, except I have heard that fossils can be found in unusual places. For instance, the footprints I mentioned earlier are in a creek bed. Other fossils I have heard are found on mountains. In both cases, very little digging was required to get to them.

The problem I see with isotopes is that fossils are buried in sedimentary rock. By definition, sedimentary rock is composed of other rock that has degraded to silt, been redeposited and formed (under pressure?) into a new form of rock. The isotopes may well be from the original rock the silt was formed from.

While I am in no way saying the "young earth" position of 6-10 thousand years is accurate, I am attempting to say that a great deal of the things we class as extremely ancient may not be as old as we commonly believe them to be.

Even concerning fossils in sedimentary stratification, I am inclined to believe that sediments can be deposited at much greater rates than we commonly give credit. I have heard of fossilized trees that extend through several layers of strata. That does not seem reasonably possible if those same strata are presumed to span several million years.

Any thoughts?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


i believe that carbon dating can only go back 50,000 years or so... don't they use Argon isotope decay for measuring things older than that?

i'll have to check on it... it's been awhile since i've cracked open the old archeology material

 

[samabudhi]

Any thoughts?

Sorry, but this is not my field.

 

[gluadys]

Certainly there is a lot wanting ni the evolutionary theory - the whole field seems very embryonic. I suspect that as protein pathways and in particular are more properly studied, we'll see a proper attempt to see these questions addressed ni a more constructive way, rather than the basic "random chance".

Actually, Brian, you are referring again to the study of abiogenesis, not the study of evolution.

Evolution assumes that life already exists.

Abiogenesis is quite a new field of biological study aimed at determining whether and how non-living matter could develop replicative powers and acquire the properties of a living cell.

Because it is so new, there is no established theory yet that takes one all the way from an ordinary crystal to a cell. There are still a lot of gaps, a lot of alternative theories, a lot of new discoveries answering some questions, but not all.

But progress is being made rapidly and I wouldn't be surprised to see a theory coalescing around a key idea like the RNA world within a few decades.

However, it doesn't matter at all to the theory of evolution what the science of abiogenesis eventually comes up with. Because the theory of evolution picks up where abiogenesis ends---with living cells already in existence. No matter how those cells originated, they evolved. And it is what happens to living cells AFTER they come into existence that the theory of evolution concerns itself with.

Oh, and neither abiogenesis nor evolution occurs by random chance. Why people fixate on that I do not know. Just the media presence of creationists, I suppose. Scientists know that chemistry is a consequence of the properties of matter. Put two chemicals together and the result is entirely predictable because of their properties. Nothing random about it. And abiogenesis is a chemical process.

Scientists also know that evolution is a consequence of natural selection. And natural selection is a process of weeding out the randomness of mutations. It is exactly the opposite of chance.

 

[gluadys]

Science has proven itself over and over, and unfortunately, it's not on God's side.

Thanks for the corrected link, samabudhi. I have appreciated your posts as well. But I must take issue with you here. It is untrue to say science is "not on God's side." Science is entirely neutral on the question of God, since God is not of a nature to be apprehended by scientific inquiry. No one can say that science proves anything about God. But no one can say science disproves God either. For you to say that science is "not on God's side" is just as incorrect as Mohsin or anyone else saying that science is "on God's side."

That said, I will agree that science is not on the side of those who take a certain position about the nature of scripture. What science has told us about the evolution of species and the origin of humanity cannot be reconciled with a belief that the account of the first man and woman presented in the second chapter of Genesis is literal history.

Most Jews and Christians, however, do not hold that belief, but understand that these ancient stories are not intended to be historical accounts. This is not a "modernist" position either, unless you consider that "modernism" began before the Middle Ages. Both Christian writers like Augustine of Hippo (4th century CE) and Rabbinic commentators cited in the Talmud from even earlier times were quite clear that Adam and Eve were not individuals, but rather representatives of humanity and their story is to be understood as the common story of every human.

(just kidding But seriously. It would help if you did some research first. If you want to disprove something, you should know it like the back of your hand first.)

Yep! Most people who have doubts and questions about scientific theories are people who have not studied them deeply. Unfortunately they fall prey to professional creationists who promote slick literature and well-done web sites filled with simplistic and erroneous information.

I long since learned I do not have the temperament to be a working scientist. It is incredibly, painstaking and detailed work--worse than accounting. So I have to sympathize with non-scientists. Even a single field of study seems very daunting and time-consuming to master. And evolution draws its supporting evidence from at least half a dozen different scientific fields.

But if one is willing to invest the time in studying the evidence, the conclusions become inescapable.

 

[gluadys]

As for fish/amphib biology, there are a couple of interesting creatures that come to mind. The Betta, or Siamese Fighting Fish, is an aquarium fish that can be kept in a very small bowl because it has lungs and breathes air.
A much more striking example stands out in my mind (dating back to grade school when I learned of it). I believe it is called African Lung Fish. It not only breathes oxygen directly, it crawls using its front fins, and it can survive at least two years encased in a ball of mud (not only not in water, but with no water to drink!).
Whether this is a "transition" form I cannot say. I do think it is a remarkable creature, and another witness to the wonder of God's creation.

Probably the best way to understand these creatures is as modern descendants of species which were cousins to ancient transitional species. Lungfish especially. Did you know that lungfish appear in the fossil record before fish with swim bladders? And the early land-vertebrates appear to be closely related to ancient lungfish.

What we can hypothesize then from the fossil record is that the earliest fish had both gills and lungs and could use both. Gills process oxygen from water. Lungs process oxygen from air and also provide bouyancy in the water so that a fish can control its vertical position in the water column.

From these early fish we get three families of descendants:
1. Modern lungfish--which have retained some of the features of the ancient lungfish. Modern lungfish are found mostly in areas where water supply is inconsistent, streams often drying up in hot weather. Having lungs enables these fish to survive such droughts.

2. Modern fish---these fish depend entirely on their gills for processing oxygen. What was a lung in their ancestors has been modified into a swim bladder which is used only for bouyancy.

3. Modern terrestrial vertebrates (and their marine descendants such as whales and dolphins).---These animals depend entirely on their lungs for processing oxygen. The bones which develop into gills in fish are still there, but they have been modified into parts of the throat, jaw and ear.

I believe in God. I also believe that He is real. Because He is real, He can handle being questioned. If He were not real, those who have a vested interest in continuing the myth would discourage questions. Which is why I have difficulty with some religions, including my own. It is not that God is not real, but that a particular view of Him may not be real.

Religion is not God. Neither is science God. Both are ways that try to explain God, and both have different motivations for doing so. Science doesn't disprove God, and those who use science to try to disprove God are seriously misguided. Religion doesn't really prove God either, it merely provides a set of stories from a point of view that provides a wisdom path. It is not wrong to question religion, more wrong is done by not questioning religion, especially those religions that demand no questions.

We have much the same views on God and religion. I entirely agree that there is nothing wrong in questioning God and religion. What is the book of Job all about if not questioning the goodness of God in a time of suffering? I agree with the medieval philosopher, Abelard:

By doubting we come to questioning,
and by questioning we come to understanding.

I believe that religion, just as much as science, is about understanding, and therefore requires questioning.

 

[gluadys]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!It is, and thank you.

I am very pleased to see you did not ascribe carbon dating to fossils, for the reason you mentioned.

I also understand measuring isotopes and radioactive decay.

So far, so good, by both samabudhi and juantoo3. Carbon dating cannot be used on fossils for two reasons: 1. The half-life of carbon 14 is very short. We probably would not have any carbon 14 in nature at all if it was not being continuously made in the atmosphere through a chemical reaction with nitrogen 14. Except for one or two other short-lived isotopes which also have a continuous source, no radio-active isotope occurs in nature today which has a half-life of less than 80 million years. (Although they can be created under laboratory conditions.) 2. Carbon 14 dating can only be used on organic substances. Fossilization replaces organic material with mineralized material. Fossil "bones" are not really bone, but mineralized replicas of what were bones (just like petrified trees are not really trees but mineralized replicas of what were trees.) That means there is no organic matter in fossils (unless they are of quite recent date and not fully fossilized yet.) And carbon 14 can only be used on organic matter.

This sounds plausible, except I have heard that fossils can be found in unusual places. For instance, the footprints I mentioned earlier are in a creek bed. Other fossils I have heard are found on mountains. In both cases, very little digging was required to get to them.

The easiest places to find fossils are where they have been uncovered by erosion. That is why there is little digging required to find some of them. Of course, its a bit of a race. Erosion helps uncover fossils, but it also destroys them. So one has to be lucky enough to find them between the time they are uncovered and the time they are destroyed.

The problem I see with isotopes is that fossils are buried in sedimentary rock. By definition, sedimentary rock is composed of other rock that has degraded to silt, been redeposited and formed (under pressure?) into a new form of rock. The isotopes may well be from the original rock the silt was formed from.

Fossils are found in sedimentary rock. But radio-isotope dating only works on igneous or metamorphosed rock. The rock to be dated needs to be completely melted (as in lava) and then cool. The melting "resets" the radio-active clock. Radio-isotope dating tells us when this rock sample began cooling off from a prior melting.

So it is not the sedimentary rock the fossil is actually in that is dated, but an igneous or metamorphosed rock in the same formation above or below the sedimentary bed. (preferably both). This provides a time-frame for the sedimentary bed and the fossils in it. It cannot be older than older igneous rock below it, nor younger than younger igneous rock above it.

Even concerning fossils in sedimentary stratification, I am inclined to believe that sediments can be deposited at much greater rates than we commonly give credit. I have heard of fossilized trees that extend through several layers of strata. That does not seem reasonably possible if those same strata are presumed to span several million years.

Any thoughts?

Yes, sediments can be deposited at different rates under different circumstances. One of the things geologists have to learn is to recognize whether a particular deposit of sediment was formed rapidly or slowly. Each type of deposit has its own particular characteristics, so they can be distinguished from one another.

Varves, for example, can only occur in sediment which is being deposited very slowly in fairly quiet waters. On the other hand the Scablands formation in Washington State resulted from the sudden erosion and deposition of sediment caused by a massive and rapid flood.

So this gets back to the need to study the field in order to know and recognize the signs of rapid vs. slow sedimentation and then apply that knowledge in each particular situation.

Yes, surprisingly, the fossils of trees can cross many strata. This occurs when trees are protected from decay. One form of protection occurs when a forested area becomes submerged in standing water. The effect is to create an area of anaerobic (oxygen-free) water around the portion of the tree that is submerged. Nothing but a few anaerobic bacteria can live in this water, so the tree is effectively protected from the organisms which cause it to decay. So there it stands for centuries as silt and sediment form around the submerged trunk. And eventually tree trunk and sediment both harden with the tree apparently "growing" through many layers of rock.

Whole fossil forests of such trees have been found in Joggins Nova Scotia, some of them one top of one another. (This means that the older forest area had to be lifted above the water line again, develop a new soil cover and grow a new forest, and then be re-submerged again to form a new fossil forest of polystrate trees.) Definitely a long and slow process.

 

[gluadys]

The evolutionary tree that I heard of has got so many flaws and now you are saying that the scienties are not trying to prove the creation of life, but its sustainance via evolution. There was a time when experiments were being held for this purpose. One thing is based on another. The entire theory of evolution, as I see it, requires proving of many things. You say that some crystals e.t.c protected the first life form, but it just adds more zeros to the probability formula that I posted. Also, for people who believe in a God also as a Creator will take the theory with a different approach. But for those who do not believe in a Creator, even the origin of life is very important to clerify. If they say that a complete molecule was the first living organism, then where did that come form?

Mohsin, there are so many factual errors in this paragraph alone it would take several posts to correct them. Basically, you have a flawed understanding of what the theory of evolution actually proposes.

For example:
1. The theory of evolution does NOT propose that there is no God or that God did not create living organisms. For believers, evolution is a scientific picture of HOW God creates. It is not a denial of creation. (btw, most people who accept the science of evolution are believers. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some Buddhist, and so on. A good number of these believers are scientists who actually study evolution.)

2. Molecules began to form with the formation of galaxies, long before the origin of life. No one has proposed that the first life form consisted of only one molecule. You need to learn something about differences of scale (e.g. the difference in size and complexity of quanta, atoms, molecules, simple replicators, cells and small multi-cellular organisms. Each level of the organization of matter is larger than the one below it by several magnitudes.)

There are several, several points that cannot be described by this theory.

Listen to these:
Why Transition From Water to Land is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

We can stop right here because this is a lie. No one claims that a water-dwelling species stepped out of the water and walked on land on a single day. There were many generations and many forms of water-dwelling species that developed the capacity to draw themselves up onto land, and it took millions of years to move from fish to amphibian. And we now have many samples of fossil species which were involved in this transition.

If you are truly interested in learning what science really says, do two things:

1. Do a google search on "tetrapoda"

2. Go to talkorigins and read--several times over--the FAQ on Transitional Fossils.

The answers to your questions are not hard to find. The only thing that is difficult is to muster up the courage to look at it.

I won't reply to the rest of your cut-and-paste. It is all as flawed as this instance. But if you wish a reaction, send me a private message.

 

[samabudhi]

We probably would not have any carbon 14 in nature at all if it was not being continuously made in the atmosphere through a chemical reaction with nitrogen 14.

Elements are not produced through chemical reactions. Incorrect term. They are produced through nuclear reactions. BRIAN!!!! WE NEED SOME MORE EMOTICONS PLEASE!!!!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Gluadys!

Thank you most sincerely for your input here!

 

[iBrian]

Carbon 14 is a natural isotope of carbon that living organisms seem to process in particularly concentrated amounts. However, Carbon 14 - and all other elements and the isotopes themselves - are effectively created by nuclear reactions in the hearts of stars. All excepting for hydrogen, which represents the most abundant identifiable matter in the universe.

And emoticons - yes, now there's a consideration.

 

[juantoo3]

I meant to ask, is it common for sedimentary rock to be sandwiched between layers of igneous rock?

Doesn't lava pretty much "dissolve" anything underneath it?

 

[iBrian]

Molten lava can indeed be very destructive - but note how it flows down the sides of a classic volcano, rather than simply burning through the slopes and back into the magma chamber below. I should imagine that alternating layers of igneous and sedimentary rock should be pretty common - certainly where there has been local volanic activity.

 

[Avinash]

Now, my question is that since the theory of evolution is incorrect and has contradictions with both Quran and the Bible, thus conflicting religion, why do so many people believe in it? Why is it taught in schools and colleges? Why do many magazines and people of the scientific community defend this theory, and do you, being a religious person, believe in this theory?

Yes, I believe in the evolution of species. No, I do not believe in the religious myths about the origins of man and other life forms.
We humans are descended from apes, monkeys, squirrel-like creatures, reptiles, amphibians, fish, wormlike creatures and protozoa.

No, I don't believe anything happens by chance, which includes the start of life and the direction of the development of life forms in response to the needs of populations. I believe the Cosmic Consciousness or God is controlling the evolution of life. I don't believe the evolution of life is driven by random mutations and natural selection as is maintained in Darwinism.

Evolution should be taught in schools as a part of the history of life, our earth and the universe. Darwinism however should be taught as a theory and not as fact. Sooner or later Darwinism will be replaced by a better explanation for the evolution of species.

 

[Mohsin]

Regards Andreas

Yes, I believe in the evolution of species. No, I do not believe in the religious myths about the origins of man and other life forms.
We humans are descended from apes, monkeys, squirrel-like creatures, reptiles, amphibians, fish, wormlike creatures and protozoa.

No, I don't believe anything happens by chance, which includes the start of life and the direction of the development of life forms in response to the needs of populations. I believe the Cosmic Consciousness or God is controlling the evolution of life. I don't believe the evolution of life is driven by random mutations and natural selection as is maintained in Darwinism.

Evolution should be taught in schools as a part of the history of life, our earth and the universe. Darwinism however should be taught as a theory and not as fact. Sooner or later Darwinism will be replaced by a better explanation for the evolution of species.

Still, there are missing links, big time. Also the statements brought up against it are strong and cannot be explained by evolution. I am not saying that it cannot happen, I am saying that it can be if and only if God wishes it to happen. God, in the religious scriptures claim that it is He who had created every thing and every one. The scriptures do not say anything about evolving of creatures. Still, I think that you will not hold the vertict of the scriptures strongly. The biggest question still remains as how does it takes place? It is acceptd by you that it cannot be by random mutations and natural selection. Also when one says that the explanation will be replaced by another better one, one accepts that the present one is not correct. So why accept it entirely as true/possible?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Brian!

Molten lava can indeed be very destructive - but note how it flows down the sides of a classic volcano, rather than simply burning through the slopes and back into the magma chamber below. I should imagine that alternating layers of igneous and sedimentary rock should be pretty common - certainly where there has been local volanic activity.

Yes, after considering my post, I suppose it is not as difficult as I first thought. I believe there are archeological examples of things buried in lava that have been recovered. I want to say Pompeii, but I think that was buried in volcanic ash if I remember correctly.

Would this imply much more volcanic activity, on a larger scale, to emtomb so much material? Is extreme vulcanism a portion of the "global destruction" attributed to a meteor in the Yucatan that set about the 65 million year old mass extinction? I understood it to have been brought about by something like "nuclear winter." I am also curious as to where the major fossil finds are in relation to the major tectonic fault lines and volcanic hot spots. Hot spots do shift over time (the Hawaiian islands are a good example), but tectonic faults, which may in some instances provide volcanic source for igneous magma, are fairly constant. Continental shifts do account for such as seas draining and new land appearing and mountains rising, but the faults themselves are fairly constant.

One example that comes to mind is the shallow sea that once existed in the midwestern states. There is a museum, in Kansas I think, that displays a 6 foot long fish fossil that had swallowed a fish almost as big as itself. It looks as though it choked to death and became a fossil. To my knowledge, the midwest is devoid of volcanic hot spots. The closest is Yellowstone national park in Wyoming. The major nearby fault is the New Madrid which is effectively the Mississippi river, which is not known for volcanism. Would such fossils then be dated by the bedrock alone?

I hear there are fossils of tropical plants found in arctic (antarctic?) regions, possibly suggesting that the earth at one time was tilted and/or spun in a different manner than it does now in relation to the sun. Either that, or the atmosphere was of a different composition than it is now. I don't know how it figures into the equation, but I also hear the magnetic poles have been reversed at least once in the past (some suggest they are preparing to shift again).

In a similar vein, I have thought from time to time about the creation of coal, oil and diamonds. All are said to have come from organic matter. Yet the conditions for such to happen have to be just right. I seem to recall someplace mentioning that conditions are not right at this moment for such to take place (I am at a loss to explain as I didn't fully understand the material). My point being that if only a small fraction of the organic matter of the past was available under "just right" conditions for such creation, then there must have been a great deal of organic matter indeed.

How much organic matter does it take to create a gallon of crude? A pound of coal? A carat of diamond? How many gallons of crude are pumped in a day? How many pounds of coal are dug up in a day? How many carats of diamonds are mined in a day? Over the years of human extraction, it has added up. Which definitely points towards finite resources, but I have long wondered if the earth, even over so long a time as millions of years, could have actually been able to produce the abundance required, even if "only" 10% (which would be an ultra high figure) actually became any of these things. Just a thought.

Maybe this is a bit much all at one time, but these are some things that have intrigued me for a while now.

 

[iBrian]

Interesting questions.

I'll try to reply to some of them:

Would this imply much more volcanic activity, on a larger scale, to emtomb so much material? Is extreme vulcanism a portion of the "global destruction" attributed to a meteor in the Yucatan that set about the 65 million year old mass extinction? I understood it to have been brought about by something like "nuclear winter."

Extreme vulcanism has been attributed to both of the "big" major extinctions, such as at the end of the Permian period (Siberia exploded) and at the end of the Cretaceous - the dinosaur extinction - when the Deccan Traps in India became a mass of super-volcanism.

To be honest, the whole notion of "nuclear winter" and the actual mechanisms of extinctions are actually unknown. In fact, the entire extinction mechanism is unknown. There is talk about an impact at Chicxulub wiping out the dinosaurs - but it has always been acknowledged from the beginnnig that the impact alone is not enough to have caused the supposed destruction attributed to it. Simply put, the impact body would have been too small and too slow. Exotic theories about the type of rock hit frankly sound like clutching at straws. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the whole "extinction" scenario is being blighted by a rush for a single all-encompassing answer - when the actual process is far more complicated. We'll see, though.

One example that comes to mind is the shallow sea that once existed in the midwestern states. There is a museum, in Kansas I think, that displays a 6 foot long fish fossil that had swallowed a fish almost as big as itself. It looks as though it choked to death and became a fossil. To my knowledge, the midwest is devoid of volcanic hot spots. The closest is Yellowstone national park in Wyoming. The major nearby fault is the New Madrid which is effectively the Mississippi river, which is not known for volcanism. Would such fossils then be dated by the bedrock alone?

There are a range of dating techniques available, that almost always measure the ratio of isotopes of target elements in rock samples. Different tests measure the ratios between different isotopes. My understanding is that more than one type of test will usually be used to date geological samples to an acceptable figure.

I hear there are fossils of tropical plants found in arctic (antarctic?) regions, possibly suggesting that the earth at one time was tilted and/or spun in a different manner than it does now in relation to the sun. Either that, or the atmosphere was of a different composition than it is now. I don't know how it figures into the equation, but I also hear the magnetic poles have been reversed at least once in the past (some suggest they are preparing to shift again).

This is more due to continental drift - Antartica itself apparently used to lie much nearer the equator, and has gradually drifted south. Also, we are still living in a "mini ice-age" period - my understanding is that during the majority of geological time, earth has *not* had polar ice caps.

In a similar vein, I have thought from time to time about the creation of coal, oil and diamonds. All are said to have come from organic matter. Yet the conditions for such to happen have to be just right. I seem to recall someplace mentioning that conditions are not right at this moment for such to take place (I am at a loss to explain as I didn't fully understand the material). My point being that if only a small fraction of the organic matter of the past was available under "just right" conditions for such creation, then there must have been a great deal of organic matter indeed.

A great deal of organic matter!! We're theoretically talking about 500 million years worth, I believe - however, if I remember right, the majority of the reserves we use were formed in the Carboniferous period - essentially, a period when the earth's land surface was extensively forested for a few million years, and quite some time before the first dinosaurs walked on land.

And I have no idea how much is erquired to make a gallon of crude.

 

[Avinash]

Evolution through creation

I am saying that it can be if and only if God wishes it to happen. God, in the religious scriptures claim that it is He who had created every thing and every one. The scriptures do not say anything about evolving of creatures.

Dear Mohsin,
That only shows that the authors of the texts in those scriptures were not aware of the vast time-scale of the earth's history nor of the enormous variety of different lifeforms that preceded the presentday flora and fauna.

Still, I think that you will not hold the verdict of the scriptures strongly.

I respect some of the wisdom of those who wrote at the time but what was known in those days on subjects such as history, biology, archaeology and geology has no comparison to our present knowledge.

The biggest question still remains as how does it takes place? It is accepted by you that it cannot be by random mutations and natural selection. Also when one says that the explanation will be replaced by another better one, one accepts that the present one is not correct. So why accept it entirely as true/possible?

I presume your question refers to evolution as a historical fact? To deny this doesn't make sense. The evidence in the fossil records and from genetic and embryological research is so overwhelming that only fools and dogmatic religious people would dare to deny that evolution is a fact of life.

God is the creator, the sustainer and destroyer of all finite forms in this universe. Nothing is permanent, all is subject to change or adjustment. He is the one who is creating you now in this very second when you are already different from a moment before. The adjustment of lifeforms which we call evolution (because it happens relatively gradual} is nothing extraordinary, but part of the laws of nature which are all His creation.

 

[StrangeQuark]

First, I'd like to say that there seem to be a lot of very informative posts expressing a wide variety of opinions here, and I could only read so many at once. Glancing at other posts has shown me that there are plenty of questions concerning the issue that I never even thought to ask. I've already learned from this experience and I hope to have the time to read more later.

I don't know anything about the Qu'ran, so I won't make any comments on it. The Bible on the other hand is different. I can still only refer those texts with which I am familiar, such as the KJV and other common translationsthat circulate in the US, so I that is my starting point.

If you define evolution as "the process of creation," as I do, then why must there be any contradiction between evolution and the Biblical account of creation? In Genesis God says, "Let there be light." That's about all the detail provided on the creation of light. That doesn't mean there aren't any more details, it just means they aren't provided.

I think the same applies to the creation of humankind. Genesis says that God made Adam from the dust of the Earth. The same molecules in our bodies are in the Earth, in one form or another.

Of course, it also says that God did everything in only six days. Still, I don't see why this must taken literally. I know this a question that's been asked countless times before, but still find it relevant to the debate: If God transcends time, just how long is a day to Him?

Now I'd like to add something about science in general. I'm not a scientist, either, but from what I've learned so far I would not proclaim that anything has ever been "proven." Scientists, I think, mainly study observable phenomena and then try to explain it by developing a theory. The only thing I can reasonably accept is that the phenomena was observed--not that it was adequately explained.

However, scientific theories do go beyond the observable phenomena. Einstein started with the observed "speed of light," then tried to reach logical conclusions from that starting point. Later, some of his predictions were experimentally verified, and thus went full circle. There's plenty of controversy over the accuracy of his theories, even the over the "evidence."

I just don't see the difference. If it happens in nature, God did it--or at least had something to do with it. That, to me, includes any proposed mechanisms for evolution, such as natural selection. If a trait is already present in the organism as the result of mutation, enabling that organism to adapt to a particular environment, that is creation at work. If the mutation occurs by chance, then God established the laws of probability that enabled the chance occurance.

Personally, I'm a little wishy-washy, though, and I'm still not convinced that it's all completely by chance. I'm just saying that if it is so, then God started it all.

Just trying to live up to my signature!