Crosswords1 min ago
Evolution.
20 Answers
Whilst understanding that evidence of Homo erectus/neanderthalensis etc disprove Theists belief in creationism am at a loss as to how such a complex organism such as ourselves could evolve from atoms/molecules? Also,if Biblical/Quranic accounts of creation of Adam were to be believed how many years ago would this have been?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lurcher100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Also,if Biblical/Quranic accounts of creation of Adam were to be believed how many years ago would this have been?..//
http://
Bishop Ussher did this in the late seventeenth century
and got the answer 4004 BC
The event ( Bishop Ussher's estimate not the figure 4004 ) was important as almost immediately people started saying " what ? we know it is much older than that "
so then Geology a young science then became a battle ground for creation and the Truth of the Bible
In Geology terms Hutton's unconformity -showed there was NOT a time that God created Earth and nothing happened thereafter.
http://
Bishop Ussher did this in the late seventeenth century
and got the answer 4004 BC
The event ( Bishop Ussher's estimate not the figure 4004 ) was important as almost immediately people started saying " what ? we know it is much older than that "
so then Geology a young science then became a battle ground for creation and the Truth of the Bible
In Geology terms Hutton's unconformity -showed there was NOT a time that God created Earth and nothing happened thereafter.
@Lurcher100
You could do no worse than to spend an hour or more per week watching any or all of David Attenbourough's documentaries, of the past 30 years, starting with the seminal Life on Earth.
That, however is more of a travelogue than an explanation, by which I mean it details what organisms evolved into what other branches of organisms and at what stage of the geological timescale, as we now understand it.
The really hard part: how do simple molecules become macromolecules and how/why macromolecules develop biological activity (up to and including self-replication) would be at least partially addressed by taking a degree in Biochemistry.
I say that with the caveat that the business of abiogenesis is still somewhat beyond the grasp of our understanding (by which I mean there isn't much money in finding the answer and there are things like cancer to be cured, first).
Bizarrely, Darwin's famous work is not one I have read myself, perhaps because its main precepts have been reiterated so many times in other books and practically every hunter/hunted documentary you've ever seen.
Which rather begs the question of what nature documentaries are screened in the Bible Belt and other faith-driven places, around the world?
You could do no worse than to spend an hour or more per week watching any or all of David Attenbourough's documentaries, of the past 30 years, starting with the seminal Life on Earth.
That, however is more of a travelogue than an explanation, by which I mean it details what organisms evolved into what other branches of organisms and at what stage of the geological timescale, as we now understand it.
The really hard part: how do simple molecules become macromolecules and how/why macromolecules develop biological activity (up to and including self-replication) would be at least partially addressed by taking a degree in Biochemistry.
I say that with the caveat that the business of abiogenesis is still somewhat beyond the grasp of our understanding (by which I mean there isn't much money in finding the answer and there are things like cancer to be cured, first).
Bizarrely, Darwin's famous work is not one I have read myself, perhaps because its main precepts have been reiterated so many times in other books and practically every hunter/hunted documentary you've ever seen.
Which rather begs the question of what nature documentaries are screened in the Bible Belt and other faith-driven places, around the world?
Disregarding arguments for or against Mr. Darwin's tome, I think it is important to the discussion to ask "...when referencing Darwin's Origin of th Species exactly which of his many revisions are you quoting from?"
One authoritative source states " It should be noted, however, that in response to numerous criticisms Darwin undertook constant revisions between the book's first appearance in 1859 and the sixth edition of 1872. The later editions thus differ considerably from the first, and the last edition contains an additional chapter (chapter 7) dealing with objections to the theory. These changes tend to obscure the original argument and the first edition is thus by far the clearest expression of Darwin's insight. A facsimile of this edition is available and also a concordance, although many modern reprints unfortunately follow the text of the sixth edition..." (Source: www.sad17.k12.me.us/teachers/.../origin_of_species.summary.html )
One authoritative source states " It should be noted, however, that in response to numerous criticisms Darwin undertook constant revisions between the book's first appearance in 1859 and the sixth edition of 1872. The later editions thus differ considerably from the first, and the last edition contains an additional chapter (chapter 7) dealing with objections to the theory. These changes tend to obscure the original argument and the first edition is thus by far the clearest expression of Darwin's insight. A facsimile of this edition is available and also a concordance, although many modern reprints unfortunately follow the text of the sixth edition..." (Source: www.sad17.k12.me.us/teachers/.../origin_of_species.summary.html )
-- answer removed --
I think doubts tend to be raised once one suggests a creationist account might be believed for the purposes of asking a further question about them. (In the 'Body & Soul' forum that might be more appropriate.)
Regarding dealing with disbelief that the complex can emerge from chaotic simple changes, this has been discussed in previous threads; as the 'related questions' indicate. It's always worth restating the discussion though if it helps convince more converts.
Regarding dealing with disbelief that the complex can emerge from chaotic simple changes, this has been discussed in previous threads; as the 'related questions' indicate. It's always worth restating the discussion though if it helps convince more converts.
apparently the main reason we have evolved so far is when we started cooking our food and not digesting so many pollutants, parasites, bacteria and viruses. this allows the brain to develop not encumbered with having to fight off so many infections and invasions. the contraindications are that we are a lot more susceptible to these conditions.
Zacs-Master and others: Please note that Darwin's book is often referred to as "The Origin of Species", "On the Origin of Species", or "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection", but NEVER as "The origin of THE species".
The book's title is not a reference to "mankind" as "THE species", but to the origin of all the different plant and animal species throughout the history of the planet.
Calling it "The origin of THE species" is very misleading.
The book's title is not a reference to "mankind" as "THE species", but to the origin of all the different plant and animal species throughout the history of the planet.
Calling it "The origin of THE species" is very misleading.
// when referencing Darwin's Origin of the Species exactly which of his many revisions are you quoting from?" //
try the Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
Not particularly recommended - third time and I am still stuck before p 500
[ asking which edition of Darwin is the correct one could lead us to ask why there are so many editions of Gray's Anatomy - after all Man hasnt changed his anatomy much. Couldnt Gray have done the proper dissection first time off and saved all that paper ? ]
try the Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
Not particularly recommended - third time and I am still stuck before p 500
[ asking which edition of Darwin is the correct one could lead us to ask why there are so many editions of Gray's Anatomy - after all Man hasnt changed his anatomy much. Couldnt Gray have done the proper dissection first time off and saved all that paper ? ]
-- answer removed --
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
http://
http://
The words "such a complex organism" should give you a big hint at the angle the OP is taking.
Now this is a perfectly valid standpoint for the layperson, who hasn't read much, hasn't watched Attenborough-type nature documentaries but has, at least, taken in the world around them with the senses they possess. It's complicated, how can it have possibly got like that, starting from inanimate chemical compounds.
As I pointed out, it takes several years of studying the relevant school subjects and a degree in molecular biology/biochemistry to get the full picture. It's simply beyond the scope of a Q&A website.
As a stop-gap you could read up various buzzwords on Wikipedia and by digging down into the bibliography, you can do-it-yourself, acquainting yourself with some areas of knowledge which interest you, in your own time but a properly structured university course is the only way to go if you want to pass on your findings without actively misleading those who know less than you do.
Then again, if you are not aiming to be employed in scientific research, you can save yourself a great deal of intellectual effort by not even trying to learn the science: attribute what you see to God and get on with your life. Just stop pestering scientists about the "truth" of the matter. You waste their time as well as your own. Neither side will ever change their mind and why should they?
Now this is a perfectly valid standpoint for the layperson, who hasn't read much, hasn't watched Attenborough-type nature documentaries but has, at least, taken in the world around them with the senses they possess. It's complicated, how can it have possibly got like that, starting from inanimate chemical compounds.
As I pointed out, it takes several years of studying the relevant school subjects and a degree in molecular biology/biochemistry to get the full picture. It's simply beyond the scope of a Q&A website.
As a stop-gap you could read up various buzzwords on Wikipedia and by digging down into the bibliography, you can do-it-yourself, acquainting yourself with some areas of knowledge which interest you, in your own time but a properly structured university course is the only way to go if you want to pass on your findings without actively misleading those who know less than you do.
Then again, if you are not aiming to be employed in scientific research, you can save yourself a great deal of intellectual effort by not even trying to learn the science: attribute what you see to God and get on with your life. Just stop pestering scientists about the "truth" of the matter. You waste their time as well as your own. Neither side will ever change their mind and why should they?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
