Article "shut down the prayer"

[homersapien 11,368]

13 hours ago, triangletiger said:

Let’s just start with, “How can life be randomly generated from non-life?”

Essentially by exposing organic precursors to external energy to form proteins.  (Of course, there's still a lot to learn.)

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0623/How-can-life-emerge-from-nonliving-matter-UNC-scientists-find-new-evidence

How can life emerge from nonliving matter? UNC scientists find new evidence.

Researchers say new findings could help answer questions about life’s chemical origins.

(June 23, 2015)

"A recipe for the perfect, life-yielding, primordial soup has eluded science for decades. But a team of biochemists say they now have a key ingredient.

Charles Carter and Richard Wolfenden, both of the University of North Carolina, have uncovered new evidence of abiogenesis, the process by which life arises from non-living chemical matter. Their study, published Thursday in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, suggests that a single ancient gene may have used each of its opposite DNA strands to code for different chemical catalysts. Those separate catalysts would have both activated amino acids, which then formed proteins – essential to the production of living cells.......

..... In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself. ......  etc.

-------------------------------------------------------

And I will add a note of personal philosophy here, as an agnostic:  If there is a God,  it is science that reveals God's handiwork.  In other words, Science and mathematics is the language of God. 

People of any given religious faith should come to terms with that. A religion that fails to accommodate science is rejecting the mind of God and will ultimately fail as a religion.

For Christians, I would suggest dropping the biblical literalism regarding things such as creation and instead consider the bible as a work of poetic metaphor written by people who existed before science was even invented (which is true). 

IMO, the actual words and teachings of Jesus would survive that perspective.  

 

[homersapien 11,368]

12 hours ago, triangletiger said:

I would say that that quora piece doesn’t really address the arguments made on evolution news.  It’s pretty much just an ad hominem attack of the site.

.......which published the BS.

And an attack on a institution dedicated to fomenting religious propaganda is not "ad hominem", by definition.

 

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Yeah, if we want what bammer has, we need to stop handing out bibles and start administering steroids, checks to the family, etc. 

Hopefully this is sarcasm. I can assure you God doesn’t care about football or any other sport. He doesn’t care about what color, gender, nationality, voting party or religious denomination you belong to. He doesn’t like anything that  divides us.God doesn’t speak English or Spanish or any other human language. He speaks his language to your heart you just interprete it in your language. People in their egotistical self, want to make it seem that they are somehow favored before God . True believers are just happy to be in God’s presence and have no need for self glorification and are quite happy in their humbleness . I guarantee you Pride and ego will send a lot of folks to hell. 

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

The reason folks have a problem about evolution versus creationism is because the man made church choose to continue to lie to prove their egotistical views. Making a human body is no big thing. According to Gods word as passed down, God just took the clay of the earth and molded Adam. Then took a simple rib and molded Eve. Men can now create a human body and most organs. They can do test tube babies. They can even use DNA to pick tall or small, male or female, color of hair and skin. Believe me God isnot impressed. The human body is not who we are but only a vessel to care who we are which is the spirt that lives inside. Every human body will not exit this earth. This is exactly why racism, nationalism, egotistical and pride are so foolish. None of it matters in God’s world. God made Adams body but then he breathed the spirit into Adam and does so in each of us. By the way that spirit can never die but this body surely will. That’s why you should be much more concerned with that spirit instead of your flesh. And for those that fail to believe me n evelotion undoubtedly you fail to read your own bibles. God made animals before he made man, just as evelotion shows. So the gorilla came before man. Out of all the animals God chose the primate to model us after. So yes we definitely evolved from the primate. And for those who question how long this earth has been here,God is eternal. He has been here forever. Meaning more than a million trillion years. Only ego can cause you to believe that mans recorded history as any basis for how long this earth has been here. Men trying to put theirselves on the same level with God! Get over it we are merely peons in comparison to God and the world he created. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

Hopefully this is sarcasm. I can assure you God doesn’t care about football or any other sport. He doesn’t care about what color, gender, nationality, voting party or religious denomination you belong to. He doesn’t like anything that  divides us.God doesn’t speak English or Spanish or any other human language. He speaks his language to your heart you just interprete it in your language. People in their egotistical self, want to make it seem that they are somehow favored before God . True believers are just happy to be in God’s presence and have no need for self glorification and are quite happy in their humbleness . I guarantee you Pride and ego will send a lot of folks to hell. 

Can I be a Proud Tiger?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

40 minutes ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

The reason folks have a problem about evolution versus creationism is because the man made church choose to continue to lie to prove their egotistical views. Making a human body is no big thing. According to Gods word as passed down, God just took the clay of the earth and molded Adam. Then took a simple rib and molded Eve. Men can now create a human body and most organs. They can do test tube babies. They can even use DNA to pick tall or small, male or female, color of hair and skin. Believe me God isnot impressed. The human body is not who we are but only a vessel to care who we are which is the spirt that lives inside. Every human body will not exit this earth. This is exactly why racism, nationalism, egotistical and pride are so foolish. None of it matters in God’s world. God made Adams body but then he breathed the spirit into Adam and does so in each of us. By the way that spirit can never die but this body surely will. That’s why you should be much more concerned with that spirit instead of your flesh. And for those that fail to believe me n evelotion undoubtedly you fail to read your own bibles. God made animals before he made man, just as evelotion shows. So the gorilla came before man. Out of all the animals God chose the primate to model us after. So yes we definitely evolved from the primate. And for those who question how long this earth has been here,God is eternal. He has been here forever. Meaning more than a million trillion years. Only ego can cause you to believe that mans recorded history as any basis for how long this earth has been here. Men trying to put theirselves on the same level with God! Get over it we are merely peons in comparison to God and the world he created. 

I'm not religious, but this is by far the most reasoned argument I've ever seen for creationism.  Well done.

[homersapien 11,368]

Not to quibble, but the gorilla didn't come before man. It would be more accurate to say that man and the gorilla came from the same (primate) ancestor.

And God didn't model man anymore than he modeled the gorilla.  (Or you could say he modeled both - along with everything else.) Man is basically another animal along with all the others, just with some highly evolved skills.   

The idea that man is somehow more reflective of God - "made in his image", or somehow divinely different - than other animals is a very dangerous idea, ecologically speaking.

 

[AUsince72 11,084]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm not religious, but this is by far the most reasoned argument I've ever seen for creationism.  Well done.

Think about it this way.

The Holy Bible is God's word.  It's "history" as HE See's fit to share with man.

Beyond that, God has no limits.  Dinosaur fossils prove that he had a lot of fun creating for millions/billions of "Earth Years" before HE decided to create man.

I've said this before... I don't understand why faith & science can't coexist.  God created man, created how man thinks, thus doesn't it stand to reason HE created science?  I don't get why an athiest thinks science disproves God any more than why a person of faith would poo-poo science.  

The Bible says God created the heavens and Earth.  It doesn't go into minute details about "how" HE did it.  "Evolution" such as it is doesn't disprove God.  It could easily, simply be the "details" as to HOW God created us.  Not sure why they have to be mutually exclusive....

[homersapien 11,368]

On 11/1/2018 at 4:39 PM, AUsince72 said:

Think about it this way.

The Holy Bible is God's word.  It's "history" as HE See's fit to share with man.

Beyond that, God has no limits.  Dinosaur fossils prove that he had a lot of fun creating for millions/billions of "Earth Years" before HE decided to create man.

I've said this before... I don't understand why faith & science can't coexist.  God created man, created how man thinks, thus doesn't it stand to reason HE created science?  I don't get why an athiest thinks science disproves God any more than why a person of faith would poo-poo science.  

The Bible says God created the heavens and Earth.  It doesn't go into minute details about "how" HE did it.  "Evolution" such as it is doesn't disprove God.  It could easily, simply be the "details" as to HOW God created us.  Not sure why they have to be mutually exclusive....

If you need/want to believe in a creator, that's certainly a rational way of doing it. 

But you are going to get a lot of push-back from those who's faith relies on the belief the bible is the literal word of God.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

18 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

Think about it this way.

The Holy Bible is God's word.  It's "history" as HE See's fit to share with man.

Beyond that, God has no limits.  Dinosaur fossils prove that he had a lot of fun creating for millions/billions of "Earth Years" before HE decided to create man.

I've said this before... I don't understand why faith & science can't coexist.  God created man, created how man thinks, thus doesn't it stand to reason HE created science?  I don't get why an athiest thinks science disproves God any more than why a person of faith would poo-poo science.  

The Bible says God created the heavens and Earth.  It doesn't go into minute details about "how" HE did it.  "Evolution" such as it is doesn't disprove God.  It could easily, simply be the "details" as to HOW God created us.  Not sure why they have to be mutually exclusive....

I've always felt this way with regards to the Bible and evolution.  It's just not a position that is overly prevalent among many Christians that I've encountered for one reason or another.  As Homer mentioned, there's a lot of hardliner textualists that I've engaged with who will immediately dispel anything that isn't in the Bible.

Said on here before that I'm not a really religious person, though I have studied many religions out of curiosity.  Grew up going to church every week too, but as I've aged, I have far more questions than answers and I'm not one to buy into faith too much.  But as long as people are happy worshipping whoever and however they wish, and not infringing on others/breaking laws, then more power to them.  Not my place to say what is right or wrong for other people.

[AUsince72 11,084]

19 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I've always felt this way with regards to the Bible and evolution.  It's just not a position that is overly prevalent among many Christians that I've encountered for one reason or another.  As Homer mentioned, there's a lot of hardliner textualists that I've engaged with who will immediately dispel anything that isn't in the Bible.

Said on here before that I'm not a really religious person, though I have studied many religions out of curiosity.  Grew up going to church every week too, but as I've aged, I have far more questions than answers and I'm not one to buy into faith too much.  But as long as people are happy worshipping whoever and however they wish, and not infringing on others/breaking laws, then more power to them.  Not my place to say what is right or wrong for other people.

And I respect your right to believe what you want.  I'm merely adding to the conversation that just because certain key words are used "science" "evolution" "Bible" whatever, it shouldn't just devolve into arguments.  Sure, many Christians have rigid beliefs and believe it or not, all of us Christians don't even agree on everything.  I'm 100% firm in my faith and frankly am a walking example of the miracles Jesus Christ performs and the power of prayer.  However, guess what... Even I have questions.  Even I read certain parts of the Bible and say "c'mon".  But in the end, I have hard evidence in my life experience that allows me to have total faith.

And with that, I don't have anything but love for Any aquaintence or friend who might be athiest or having a crisis of faith.  I don't feel the need to argue and arguing isn't effective anyway.  You either have faith or you don't.  You're interested in it or not.  If so, Yay!  I love to share and discuss.  If not, I pray you change your mind mind one day but I still love & respect you. And there's always common ground that CAN be discussed....such as Auburn football!

[triangletiger 1,599]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

.......which published the BS.

And an attack on a institution dedicated to fomenting religious propaganda is not "ad hominem", by definition.

 

Okay, then, maybe not ad hominem, but he's certainly guilty of the genetic fallacy.  If Mr. (Dr.?) Wilson doesn't address the challenges to Darwinian evolution (such as irreducible complexity) that are presented, but merely says that Evolution News/Discovery Institute's motivations are to 'promote pseudoscience'  and 'getting creationism taught in school alongside evolution in science classes' without making the case for why the challenges presented (which he refers to as 'wedge strategies'), that is textbook genetic fallacy.  The closest he comes to actually addressing the challenges is saying that 'they have not conducted a single viable or peer reviewed experiment that supports their hypotheses'.   I don't work in the fields of biology or genetic science, but I'm not sure how one would go about conducting an experiment regarding something like irreducible complexity.  But this argument cuts both ways.  Since random mutation through natural selection has to occur over vast spans of time and is not observable in a laboratory setting, much of Darwinism is based on speculation rather than experiment.  It's largely an extrapolation to the macro scale of things that are observed on the micro scale.   

[AUsince72 11,084]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you need to believe in a creator, that's certainly a rational way of doing it. 

But you are going to get a lot of push-back from those who's faith relies on the belief the bible is the literal word of God.

See also my post above to Brad_ATX for more of my thoughts....

But just to answer you directly.  I don't "need" to believe.  I just do.  I don't make myself love cheeseburgers & beer.  I just do.  I hope that makes sense...

As I said to Brad, hey even Christians don't all agree. Examples: I know plenty who think alcohol is the devil and Jesus & his disciples drank non-alcoholic grape juice.  Silly....  I don't know a whole lot about Catholicism but what I DO know, I disagree with some of their beliefs.  I'm "technically" a Baptist but I don't ascribe to all their nuances.  So I just say I'm Christian.  I question whether everything in the Bible is literal or if there are a lot of parables.  But I DON'T question it's what God wants us to know, regardless.

And guess what... There's plenty Christians who would argue with me too.  Just as much as an athiest might.  But again, arguments are non-starters. They're counterproductive.  I prefer mutually respectful conversations.  

And with that, I hope I set a GOOD example of a Christian and not one that turns poeple off.

[triangletiger 1,599]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Essentially by exposing organic precursors to external energy to form proteins.  (Of course, there's still a lot to learn.)

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0623/How-can-life-emerge-from-nonliving-matter-UNC-scientists-find-new-evidence

How can life emerge from nonliving matter? UNC scientists find new evidence.

Researchers say new findings could help answer questions about life’s chemical origins.

(June 23, 2015)

"A recipe for the perfect, life-yielding, primordial soup has eluded science for decades. But a team of biochemists say they now have a key ingredient.

Charles Carter and Richard Wolfenden, both of the University of North Carolina, have uncovered new evidence of abiogenesis, the process by which life arises from non-living chemical matter. Their study, published Thursday in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, suggests that a single ancient gene may have used each of its opposite DNA strands to code for different chemical catalysts. Those separate catalysts would have both activated amino acids, which then formed proteins – essential to the production of living cells.......

..... In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself. ......  etc.

-------------------------------------------------------

And I will add a note of personal philosophy here, as an agnostic:  If there is a God,  it is science that reveals God's handiwork.  In other words, Science and mathematics is the language of God. 

People of any given religious faith should come to terms with that. A religion that fails to accommodate science is rejecting the mind of God and will ultimately fail as a religion.

For Christians, I would suggest dropping the biblical literalism regarding things such as creation and instead consider the bible as a work of poetic metaphor written by people who existed before science was even invented (which is true). 

IMO, the actual words and teachings of Jesus would survive that perspective.  

 

I will read this article when I get a chance, but my understanding (which, granted, is limited) is that the challenge is explaining he source for the homochirality of biological molecules.  

https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2017/10/02/homochirality-a-big-challenge-for-the-naturalistic-origin-of-life

[triangletiger 1,599]

56 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you need to believe in a creator, that's certainly a rational way of doing it. 

But you are going to get a lot of push-back from those who's faith relies on the belief the bible is the literal word of God.

This statement really doesn't make sense from your perspective (if I understand your perspective correctly).  If our existence just the chance result of random occurrences, then we really don't have free will and all of our thoughts are really just the product of brain-states brought about by electro-chemical reactions.  So where would this 'need' come from?  Where would any desire come from?   What biological/evolutionary advantage does conscientiousness and a (false) sense of free will provide? 

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Can I be a Proud Tiger?

Yep. I am too. But I’m proud of the players and folks that work there. I don’t take it like a lot of folks that I should share in that glory because I did nothing. One of the things I despise about uat folks about how they boast like they were the ones responsible for the win. 

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

FWIW I am a science at heart person. I do believe that we have been here on this earth a very long time. Geological findings cannot be disputed. Anyone who has studied space understands that the development we see thru space took a long time to developed. I also understand when I see references to time in the scriptures that those are made up. Please try to remember we didn’t have the ability to measure time then. A year in our time is the amount of time it takes for earth to travel it’s orbit. That wasn’t even understood till long after Christ time on this earth. The history of the Old Testament and new Testaments wasn’t recorded till maybe hundreds of years after Christ. The first so called Bible wasn’t written till about 1000 AD. The point is Science does not contradict the truth . When I look at the sheer size of the universe and how over the last 70 years we have ventured into space, I find it hard to believe in a random existence. I truely believe in a Creator. And if there was a Creatot then what was his purpose? I think Jesus answered that logically in that this world is a device to separate the wheat from the chaffe. I view this world as nothing more than a very elaborate simulator. God creates all these simulations to truly test us. It is easy to fool you family friends and others but you will not fool him. In the end if we emerge with the kind of heart that He requires of us then our reward will be a great experience to be in the presence of Perfection. If I’m wrong then I will perish knowing that I tried to help everyone I came in contact with and I won’t complain about that. 

[homersapien 11,368]

43 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

I will read this article when I get a chance, but my understanding (which, granted, is limited) is that the challenge is explaining he source for the homochirality of biological molecules.  

https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2017/10/02/homochirality-a-big-challenge-for-the-naturalistic-origin-of-life

There are a lot of unknown details in the science of evolution - as my above reference demonstrates - but the general theory is not in doubt.

Clearly, this is an attempt to cast doubt on the general theory by focusing on what is essentially a minor detail.  (Just look who is proposing it. )

It's not much different tactically than the irreducible complexity argument - which sounds pretty convincing except that it's completely false.  That argument can be easily refuted by a laymen by simply pointing out the evolutionary precursors to a fully evolved eye.

This one would need to be addressed by a molecular biologist which is above my capabilities - at least in providing an offhand response. But I'll look into it. 

No offense, but I doubt you seriously understand homochirality as reflected by your statement of "my understanding"....  While I certainly understand the concept of molecular isomers I have no understanding of this particular argument as to how it relates to evolution and it's significance. 

But I understand enough to understand the argument once I've researched it, so I will get back to you.  (This may take more than a week since I will be out of town and I won't do this sort of research on my phone.)

But trust me, this does not represent a serious challenge to the Theory of evolution. (Please not that the "T" in "Theory" is in caps.  That's significant.) If it was, we'd have heard a LOT more about it.

One other thing, the logic of suggesting evolution as unlikely because of such an arcane detail,  and then using that as a reason to suggesting divine intervention is more likely is logically absurd.

The absence of data proves nothing.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm not religious, but this is by far the most reasoned argument I've ever seen for creationism.  Well done.

I am not insinuating anything about the post you responded to, rather I just want to ask you a question. You're a reasonable guy and your perspective intrigues me. (also, judging by other comments, we aren't very concerned with "derailing" the thread.) 

Do you think there is a problem when people try to use the Bible to prove or dispel a scientific assertion? In other words, do you see how it might not be wise to use the Bible as a textbook? I certainly answer in the affirmative. For example, Genesis says that God created the universe in 7 "days." However, prior to the creation of the sun, must it not beg the question how days were calculated? I am not well-versed in Biblical languages, so I suppose an argument from semantics could cut the other way. Nonetheless, on the surface it just seems somewhat counterintuitive at times to treat the Bible as a science textbook. The same goes for people who appeal to the Bible when casting their argument for the earth's age. I mean, of course God created things that were already "aged," if that makes sense (I doubt most Christians think Adam and Eve were created as newborns - the same logic could be used for trees, etc.). But still, it just doesn't seem to fit uniformly. 

[homersapien 11,368]

On 11/1/2018 at 5:45 PM, triangletiger said:

This statement really doesn't make sense from your perspective (if I understand your perspective correctly).  If our existence just the chance result of random occurrences, then we really don't have free will and all of our thoughts are really just the product of brain-states brought about by electro-chemical reactions.  So where would this 'need' come from?  Where would any desire come from?   What biological/evolutionary advantage does conscientiousness and a (false) sense of free will provide? 

There are plenty of potential evolutionary advantages associated with the need to believe in deities.  Religion is a huge factor in fostering tribalism, for example.  

But not all characteristics of a given species necessarily have a key role or purpose in their evolutionary success.  Many characteristics exist as side effects (spandrels). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

And God didn't model man anymore than he modeled the gorilla.  (Or you could say he modeled both - along with everything else.) Man is basically another animal along with all the others, just with some highly evolved skills.   

The idea that man is somehow more reflective of God - "made in his image", or somehow divinely different - than other animals is a very dangerous idea, ecologically speaking.

If you're talking about God in the confines of scripture, then its impossible to maintain that "Man is basically another animal along with all the others, just with some highly evolved skills." What distinguishes "Man" in the Biblical account is that God breathed life into them, unlike all other created life. He also gave Man dominion over all creatures. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

6 hours ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

Hopefully this is sarcasm. I can assure you God doesn’t care about football or any other sport. He doesn’t care about what color, gender, nationality, voting party or religious denomination you belong to. He doesn’t like anything that  divides us.God doesn’t speak English or Spanish or any other human language. He speaks his language to your heart you just interprete it in your language. People in their egotistical self, want to make it seem that they are somehow favored before God . True believers are just happy to be in God’s presence and have no need for self glorification and are quite happy in their humbleness . I guarantee you Pride and ego will send a lot of folks to hell. 

Glad you could recognize the obvious. Many here cannot. Sad.

[AUsince72 11,084]

44 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I am not insinuating anything about the post you responded to, rather I just want to ask you a question. You're a reasonable guy and your perspective intrigues me. (also, judging by other comments, we aren't very concerned with "derailing" the thread.) 

Do you think there is a problem when people try to use the Bible to prove or dispel a scientific assertion? In other words, do you see how it might not be wise to use the Bible as a textbook? I certainly answer in the affirmative. For example, Genesis says that God created the universe in 7 "days." However, prior to the creation of the sun, must it not beg the question how days were calculated? I am not well-versed in Biblical languages, so I suppose an argument from semantics could cut the other way. Nonetheless, on the surface it just seems somewhat counterintuitive at times to treat the Bible as a science textbook. The same goes for people who appeal to the Bible when casting their argument for the earth's age. I mean, of course God created things that were already "aged," if that makes sense (I doubt most Christians think Adam and Eve were created as newborns - the same logic could be used for trees, etc.). But still, it just doesn't seem to fit uniformly. 

So many of the conversations in this thread are way too deep and "scientific" for me.  Merely meaning I'm not smart enough to follow all of it.

But one simple thing I'd like to mention is that I believe most Christians (and even Jews) agree that a "day" to God is not a "day" to us.  For example, in the 2000-ish years since Christ was on this Earth I'm not sure that a "day" has even passed in "God's time".

Just remember, Christians might have plenty questions and confusion too, when it comes to the Bible, or life in general, but we DON'T question God.  We're not meant to have all the answers.  We're meant to strive to meet HIS expectations.  But HE knows we can't.  We are all full of a sin nature thus the sacrifice HE made in HIS Son.... which allows us to not be perfect.  The Bible is not a science textbook, you're correct.  However, it is a guide to how we should strive to live.  Think of it more as a Rule book.

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

There are plenty of potential evolutionary advantages associated with the need to believe in deities.  Religion is a huge factor in fostering tribalism, for example.  

But not all characteristics of a given species necessarily have a key role or purpose in their evolutionary success.  Many characteristics exist as spandrels. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

So, what are the evolutionary advantages to believing in evolution?   This is an area where evolution is self-refuting. If the only purpose for anything to exist (or come to exist) is because it provides an evolutionary advantage then can we really trust in the veracity of any belief we come to hold?

(Sorry.  I replied before I saw the last bit about spandrels.  Are the beliefs we come to hold spandrels?)

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

2 hours ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

FWIW I am a science at heart person. I do believe that we have been here on this earth a very long time. Geological findings cannot be disputed. Anyone who has studied space understands that the development we see thru space took a long time to developed. I also understand when I see references to time in the scriptures that those are made up. Please try to remember we didn’t have the ability to measure time then. A year in our time is the amount of time it takes for earth to travel it’s orbit. That wasn’t even understood till long after Christ time on this earth. The history of the Old Testament and new Testaments wasn’t recorded till maybe hundreds of years after Christ. The first so called Bible wasn’t written till about 1000 AD. The point is Science does not contradict the truth . When I look at the sheer size of the universe and how over the last 70 years we have ventured into space, I find it hard to believe in a random existence. I truely believe in a Creator. And if there was a Creatot then what was his purpose? I think Jesus answered that logically in that this world is a device to separate the wheat from the chaffe. I view this world as nothing more than a very elaborate simulator. God creates all these simulations to truly test us. It is easy to fool you family friends and others but you will not fool him. In the end if we emerge with the kind of heart that He requires of us then our reward will be a great experience to be in the presence of Perfection. If I’m wrong then I will perish knowing that I tried to help everyone I came in contact with and I won’t complain about that. 

While I am inclined to agree with your position, your post kind of conflicts with itself.  You state that the Old Testament wasn’t recorded  until hundreds of years after Christ and yet portions of the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament.  The Old Testament was most certainly recorded prior to the birth of Christ and the New Testament writings were recorded before AD 100.  The canon was largely agreed upon before the Council of Nivea in the early 300s.  What you may be getting confused about is the age of the extant copies of the Bible (codices) that we have today.  But we have portions of the Old Testament books that date to before Christ (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Where your post kind of conflicts with itself is, if the Bible wasn’t recorded until 1000 years after Christ, can we trust in its historicity?