Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3
Evolution versus Creationism.
The debate bible literalists just can't stand, as all the factual, verifiable evidence supports evolution.
But don't take my word for it.
Here is a great article from Nature magazine. They said it much better then I ever could, it is a credible source, and what they discussed is peer reviewed science.
Oh, and they give original references.
Current stuff, not stuff written more then 2000 years ago. They actually know that a bat is a mammal, and not as the bible says (Deuteronomy 14:18), a bird. They also know that a rabbit does not chew it's cud, unlike the bible in the same chapter.
You know, the scientific reality. |
Good articles, did you happen to notice the qualifying statement on page 1 indicating this article is all firmly in the 'theoretical' realm? Here it is:
"This study demonstrates the existence of potential transition forms in the fossil record." - the existence of POTENTIAL transition forms ... As you go through the articles note how often terms like, "suggesting", "seems to have been", "could have been", "can be", "can cause" - all of which suggest the author(s) are not putting this forward as 'proof positive' but as theoretical evidence that is potentially possible. In that regard, the article can at best be used to support the position that evolution is theoretically potential / possible - based on interpretations of the evidence.
One problem I have with (edit here) macro-evolutionary theory, as interesting and perplexing and speculative as it is, is this: what's the 'end game', the goal, what's the purpose?
Does evolution always lead to a 'higher', better creature?
If so we humans may be in trouble! Although our mind capacity may be improving (although that's certainly debatable too
) our physical prowess, generally speaking is slipping. I don't remember where I read it, it was some time ago, an article about a study that showed how in general we cannot physically compare to many 'ancient' people who were stronger, faster, could jump further and higher,and were a lot more agile. I know I'd be in trouble
Note: re the "bat" in Deuteronomy 14:18, you are making a mistake applying modern English western taxonomy (the science of classification) to an ancient Hebrew word that in ancient eastern taxonomy identified bats with other 'winged creatures'. Even some flying insects were lumped in with bats and birds! The text is not suggesting anyone saw bats (or insects) as birds, it is saying they belong to the 'group' of creatures with wings that could fly. Bats, along with the other 'winged creatures' listed in that passage you refer to were considered to be "unclean" and not fit for human consumption. Again (
I get tired of saying that with you
) try reading in the greater context - at minimum verses 11-20. See if you can figure it out
(Hint: 'unclean' winged creatures)
About the word translated "hare", or as you say "rabbit" in verse 7, the Hebrew word is, transliterated into English,
arnabun or, in ancient Assyrian,
arnabo which is believed to describe an unknown animal that 'springs' - jumps like a rabbit. The problem is, nobody really knows exactly what that animal was! So, English translators gave it the word "hare", which, probably because they look like they are always chewing was considered to be a passable translation.
So you see, it's not so easy to dismiss Biblical texts without really, really getting into them!
