How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

[Purple Knight]

This is not a question of whether or not evolution is crazy, but how crazy it seems at first glance.

That is, when we discard our experiences and look at claims as if through new eyes, what do we find when we look at evolution? I Believe we can find a great deal of common ground with this question, because when I discard my experience as an animal breeder, when I discard my knowledge, and what I've been taught, I might look at evolution with the same skepticism as someone who has either never been taught anything about it, or someone who has been taught to distrust it.

Personally my mind goes to the keratinised spines on the tongues of cats. Yes, cats have fingernails growing out of their tongues! Gross, right? Well, these particular fingernails have evolved into perfect little brushes for the animal's fur. But I think of that first animal with a horrid growth of keratin on its poor tongue. The poor thing didn't die immediately, and this fits perfectly with what I said about two steps back paying for one forward. This detrimental mutation didn't hurt the animal enough for the hapless thing to die of it, but surely it caused some suffering. And persevering thing that he was, he reproduced despite his disability (probably in a time of plenty that allowed that). But did he have the growths anywhere else? It isn't beyond reason to think of them protruding from the corners of his eyes or caking up more and more on the palms of his hands. Perhaps he had them where his eyelashes were, and it hurt him to even blink. As disturbing as my mental picture is of this scenario, this sad creature isn't even as bad off as this boar, whose tusks grew up and curled until they punctured his brain.





This is a perfect example of a detrimental trait being preserved because it doesn't hurt the animal enough to kill it before it mates. So we don't have to jump right from benefit to benefit. The road to a new beneficial trait might be long, going backwards most of the way, and filled with a lot of stabbed brains and eyelids.

Walking backwards most of the time, uphill both ways, and across caltrops almost the entire trip?

I have to admit, thinking about walking along such a path sounds like, at very least, a very depressing way to get from A to B. I would hope there would be a better way.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
The Church has never held Sola Scriptura to be true. Indeed, as you have see, the Bible itself says that there are other authoritative sources of information about God.

If you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church

I'm talking about the Bible. Romans 1:19-20, which specifically rules out Sola Scriptura, precedes the Council of Trent.

The early church fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus all taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies.

Sola Scriptura is an error, not a heresy. So that doesn't apply here.

As you have seen, none of the Church fathers contradicted St. Paul when he wrote that there were other authoritative sources of truth about God than scripture.

"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive:

How could it be? The OT was founded on tradition, just as the NT is founded on tradition.

Protestans accepted the authority of Scripture but not the authority of religious tradition, as St. Paul set forth. This error was propagated by men who distrusted God's inspiration.

Since the Bible was compiled by men, depending on tradition, it would be impossible to separate the two. Two sides of one thing.

Why didn't you just say that you believed in higher criticism when I asked.

You've confused the views of St. Paul with "higher criticism." So that means that you do not believe the Bible when it states:
Roman 1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

If you do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God there is no way for you to prove that I am right or wrong. Your belief system is just a modern revision of Christian belief to exclude tradition (which as you realize was the basis for the Bible).

In the case of the Mormans, it is the Bible plus the book of Morman. In the case of the Jehovah's witnesses, it is the Bible plus the parts that they rewrote.

In the case of those who invented Sola Scriptura, it is the Bible minus tradition. After all, the Bible was founded on tradition.

Muslims believe the parts of the Bible and the Koran.

Some Protestants believe in parts of the Bible plus Sola Scriptura. Yes. There have been many who have "adjusted" scripture to fit their new ideas. These are few of the salient ones.

You seem to be saying that you believe some of the bible and something you call "Scientific Theory." The capitalization shows that you have no idea what it is, and have confused it with religious belief.

We are closer in time to the inventor of Sola Scriptura than we are to The apostles. And as you have seen, the Bible itself rules out Sola Scriptura.

As clearly shown above the Bible rules out everything but Sola Scriptura and you have also learned how Sola Scriptura was used exclusively used by the Early Church against heresy.

St. Paul specifically refutes that error, showing that that God's power and majesty are clearly seen in His creation as well.

You have also learned that there is no authority for you to appeal if you deny St. Paul's testimony that the Bible is not the only source of knowledge about God. Ironically, if you believe Sola Scriptura, you cannot consistently believe that the Bible is the only source if information about God.

People can reason through all kinds of things Sola Scriptura. So which is true the Bible or human reason?

Augustine believed in the supremacy of Scripture.

But not the exclusivity of Scripture. He never denied St. Paul's testimony.

And he says that where scripture does not definitively state one or another things, we should always be ready to change our opinions when new evidence is found.

Creation is not one of these things. Creation is spoken of in Scripture.

Creation is a fact. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Augustine would actually say that your belief that Genesis is an allegory would be adding to Scripture.

Nope.
When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.
St. Augustine De Genisi ad litteram

There is no such indication that Genesis is an allegory.

The text itself tells us that it's figurative and could not have referred to literal mornings and evenings:
We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the [sun’s] setting and no morning but b the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day.
ibid

The text itself tells us that it is not a literal history.

[William]

Again - the discussion being had here shows me that beliefs to do with the age of the Universe are secondary in relevant importance to the fact of its existence and our existence within it.

Re: the OPQ: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

No more or less crazy than the notion of the Universe being a Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation produced and processed within the mind of The Father God - and furthermore, this idea does not go against The Script...scripture being scant on the details has to do with its focus being on The Creator re the Human element of the story - rather than specifically The Creation...and in that regard, 'a blink of an eye' and '13.8 billion years' amount to exactly the same thing in relation to said Mind.
Notice too, that the Biblical take on the existence of life on Earth, does not acknowledge the Dinosaurs

Search: What does the word Dinosaur mean
Sir Richard Owen came up with the name dinosaur in 1841 to describe the fossils of extinct reptiles. He coined the word by combining the Greek words “deinos”, which means terrible, and “sauros”, which means lizard.

As near to this as the bible story gets, is The Serpent...is that a coincidence or something linking prehistory with human development?

[The Barbarian]

Again - the discussion being had here shows me that beliefs to do with the age of the Universe are secondary in relevant importance to the fact of its existence and our existence within it.

Re: the OPQ: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

No more or less crazy than the notion of the Universe being a Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation produced and processed within the mind of The Father God - and furthermore, this idea does not go against The Script...scripture being scant on the details has to do with its focus being on The Creator re the Human element of the story - rather than specifically The Creation...and in that regard, 'a blink of an eye' and '13.8 billion years' amount to exactly the same thing in relation to said Mind.
Notice too, that the Biblical take on the existence of life on Earth, does not acknowledge the Dinosaurs

Search: What does the word Dinosaur mean
Sir Richard Owen came up with the name dinosaur in 1841 to describe the fossils of extinct reptiles. He coined the word by combining the Greek words “deinos”, which means terrible, and “sauros”, which means lizard.

As near to this as the bible story gets, is The Serpent...is that a coincidence or something linking prehistory with human development?

You're thinking maybe of something like Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history", the idea that all of pre-Adamic history is a sort of backstory that God wrote to provide background or something?

The serpent thing is kinda interesting. Serpents in ancient mesopotamia were symbols of wisdom, immortality, and health. It was a serpent who stole immortality from Gilgamesh. So Abraham's people would get the serpent readily. A wily trickster, up to mischief. But then, there was Nehushtan, the brazen serpent made by Moses according to God's instruction to heal those who gazed on it. Jesus put finer point on this when He cited the serpent in John 3:14-15:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

As He was lifted up, on the Cross, those who believed in Him would have healing and eternal life.

[William]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1003]

You're thinking maybe of something like Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history", the idea that all of pre-Adamic history is a sort of backstory that God wrote to provide background or something?

I haven't read anything from that author - The backstory is certainly there re evidence of the dinosaur - although it is obviously a story in itself pre-dating the advent of the human instrument -

The serpent thing is kinda interesting. Serpents in ancient mesopotamia were symbols of wisdom, immortality, and health. It was a serpent who stole immortality from Gilgamesh. So Abraham's people would get the serpent readily. A wily trickster, up to mischief. But then, there was Nehushtan, the brazen serpent made by Moses according to God's instruction to heal those who gazed on it.

It is interesting that a brazen image was created under the instruction of Moses' God and used in that manner.

Nehushtan = 110 [SOURCE] which is a number mentioned three days ago, in another thread...Post #8

I am questioning the reason the Serpent was part of The Garden Story which is focused upon involving the creation of the Human instrument.
The Serpent was attributed with abilities which no member of the lizard-specie has been seen to have - and the connection I am wondering about is specifically with the Great Lizards which thrived on the planet long before the formation of the human instrument.

It is interesting and begs the question as to why - specifically - the antagonist of said story is reptilian.

Add to that - we also have information from the Conspiracy sector which insists that a Reptilian race [Specifically referred to as Annunaki - Mesopotamian pantheon] who had something to do with the creation of the human instrument, and that these reptilians rule the nest {Earth} and control Human beings through influential means, behind the scenes.

Which - of course - fits in with the biblical idea of Satan being 'cast from Heaven to rule the Earth'

Often the Reptilian race is portrayed as extraterrestrial/interdimensional but why would that have to be the case, since we know that The Age of The Reptile on this very planet was an immensely long period of time, especially when compared with the age of The Great Ape - so plenty of time therein to evolve into a highly technological specie possessing apparently god-like powers...

[The Barbarian]

Nehushtan = 110 [SOURCE] which is a number mentioned three days ago, in another thread...Post #8

Which would by the usual gemmatria, be 2. Not an auspicious number.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Absent from that list would be what is now known as "The New Testament" because at the time of the writing, the NT did not even exist as anything to refer to as "The Word of God" - It was at the time - still a work in progress.

And as the OT was the result of tradition and consensus of believers, so too, is the NT.

And I continue to be stunned by those who don't know what the Bible is.

So, which particular Bible might you be referring to?

[JoeyKnothead]

Nehushtan = 110 [SOURCE] which is a number mentioned three days ago, in another thread...Post #8

Which would by the usual gemmatria, be 2. Not an auspicious number.

Allowing the little block there to censor...

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nehushtan = 110 [SOURCE] which is a number mentioned three days ago, in another thread...Post #8

Which would by the usual gemmatria, be 2. Not an auspicious number.

Allowing the little block there to censor...

Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.
Creation is making things discoverable.

[JoeyKnothead]

Nehushtan = 110 [SOURCE] which is a number mentioned three days ago, in another thread...Post #8

Which would by the usual gemmatria, be 2. Not an auspicious number.

Allowing the little block there to censor...

Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.
Creation is making things discoverable.

You can only pray you'll ever have the mind of William.

Your bastardization of his words is typical of your slanderous, insulting, corrupt style of debate.

I STAND BY MY FRIEND'S COMMENTS, IN THE ORIGINAL PHRASE, IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT...

Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

It'd be an insult to call you a booger eater, so I won't.

[The Barbarian]

And as the OT was the result of tradition and consensus of believers, so too, is the NT.
And I continue to be stunned by those who don't know what the Bible is.

So, which particular Bible might you be referring to?

So now you do know what the Bible is. Good. I have three by my desk. A KJV, a Douay, and an Orthodox Study Bible. And I have access to many other editions on line. All of them seem to be equally valid as God's word. Some of them lack some books, others have more. Since all Bibles were compiled by men, using tradition, scholarship and prayer, I'm impressed that they are all so closely alike.

How about you?