Evolution: The discussion and the theory...

[SithRevan]

I have been thinking a lot lately about evolution. How our species became what it is today and to tell you the truth A LOT of things just do not make any sense.

 

Personally I don't care whether or not you share this view with me or not but I am a very religious person, at least I would like to think so, and I go by the story of Adam and Eve but there is one thing I am confused about with that scenario and it is the fact that it doesn't make any sense chronologically and really neither does the scientific scenario. There are huge gaps in both of them. Like with the Adam and Eve scenario God puts Adam on earth in the Garden of Eden then takes one of Adam's rib bones and makes Eve, then the apple thing happens and they are cast out of Eden, then they have two children, Able and Cain, Cain kills Able and is banished into the East of Eden. Now the thing that confuses me about that is if Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and were very intelligent people how did the cave man come in? Cave men as far as I know were hunter gather's who barely new how to make a fire. Now that is where the scientfic theory comes in. If cave men were the first people how did they get here? That does not make any sense to me. Because if a Higher being, namely God, did not put them here there would be no other way.

 

Okay now even if the first paragraph did not intregue you lets see if this one can. Now that we have gotten the beginning of life out of the way how about after that when the cave men were dwelling here. Now as you all may or may not know cave men from the point of thier existense evolved very quickly according to historical documentation. They went from barely being able to create fire to building the wheel, socializing, then becoming pharoes and more advanced civilizations within 10,000 years or so. That in my book counts as an extremely odd cycle of evolution.

 

So anyway here is my theory which you can agree with or not. What I think happened is that our species is much... much older then we ever anticipated it was. What I think might have happened is that our civilization was just as advanced if not more then we are now a long time ago, in a galaxy far... far away ironically. What I think happened is this planet was not our first home. I think we populated another planet at one time, we were on the brink of a war or natural disaster that caused us to try to come to another world and inhabit it, hence the Adam and Eve scenario, then Adam and Eve gave birth to Able and Cain, Cain killed Abel, then was banished into the East of Eden where it was said that he had children. From there though I think something may have wiped out a good number of the population including most of the more intelligent life forms. Leaving the young who eventually became cave men to fend for themselves. That would be a good reason why they were so helpless at first. Then something along the way triggered a chain of events that lead them to create fire, the wheel, civilization and restart our entire population.

 

Now I know that sounds totally far fetched, even a little stupid but it would explain a lot of things like why we don't have a missing link in our species time line.

 

So just give me your opinion on my theory or what happend and please feel free to scrutinize my theory openly as I do want to be able to keep an open mind about all of this.

[SilentScope001]

I have always been thinking of a Theory X, that would contradict both Evolution and Creationism. I think you found it...good job.

 

No proof though, and I do think evolution suffices to say that we are just one species of humans, and there has been numerous species of humans. It's just not needed to go through this route. But it's possible.

 

Here's how the first cavemen came:

 

1. There were the first Apes. Apes bred, and mutations occured, creating the first cavemen.

2. These cavemen, after generations of mutations, soon became SMART. That intelligence is what caused for humans to become more powerful.

[Achilles]

Oh how I hate it when I can't remember a word! There is actually a term for people that hypothesize that the Earth is an alien colony.

 

(EDIT: Gah! Got it! The group is call Raelians)

 

Also, I believe one of the tenets of Scientology is that we are an alien colony. I'm not sure how much that helps. Sorry.

 

If you were also looking for a little bit of an explanation on evolutionary theory, please let me know and I'll try to give you a condensed version.

[CountVerilucus]

Too be honest, the Bible has great stories you can learn from and use in your own life. But I believe they just made up some of those stories because at the time they did not have any other way to explain the creation of the Universe/Earth/Organisms. Really, that should be left to science to explain.

 

I honestly believe that evolution is true and that it is a very plausible theory. The only legitimate reason to not believe it is to be skeptical about the evidence behind it. Instead of the theory contradicting 2000 year old religious scripture.

[Ambrose]

To make a very long story short...

 

I believe in evolution.

 

And in case anyone was wondering, the Catholic Church is perfectly ok with that

 

However, that's certainly not to say that I believe that God didn't have his hand in creation.

[SilentScope001]

Here's another theory.

 

Once upon a time, the human race grew to became an advanced race. Colonizing everything, it soon realized that the Universe may die, due to "heat death". So it created a computer and tasked it with the impossible task of finding a way to stop entrophy.

 

The Computer spents millions of years trying to solve the problem, and JUST before the Universe collaspes, the Computer finally figured out how to resurrect the universe. So it does so, saying "Be!" This Computer became "God".

 

This is a short story by Issac Asmoiv. I forgot what it was called, but from here, the answer to this delimma is quite clear:

 

Who made the Human Race? Easy...the Human race.

[Ambrose]

The story you're referring to is "The Last Question"

 

I love Isaac Asimov books.

[Jae Onasi]

The group is call Raelians)

 

*Jae wonders when windu6 is going to chime in on this thread*

 

[Achilles]

To make a very long story short...

 

I believe in evolution.

 

And in case anyone was wondering, the Catholic Church is perfectly ok with that

 

However, that's certainly not to say that I believe that God didn't have his hand in creation.

Would you still believe in it if the Catholic Church was not ok with it? Should members of other churches believe in it even if their spiritual leaders don't?

[Ambrose]

Would you still believe in it if the Catholic Church was not ok with it? Should members of other churches believe in it even if their spiritual leaders don't?

 

The Catholic Church's stance is that religion cannot contradict science (why would God want to hide himself by contradicting science?).

 

As such, the only reason why the Church would not be ok with it would be if it was proven scientifically unsound.

[Achilles]

You didn't answer either of my questions

 

Thank in advance for your reply.

[Ambrose]

Would you still believe in it if the Catholic Church was not ok with it?

 

In that case I would not believe in it, because it would be scientifically unsound.

 

Should members of other churches believe in it even if their spiritual leaders don't?

 

I don't know what protestant belief is on the necessity for following their spiritual leaders, so I couldn't say. But I do find it silly that Protestant sects discredit a perfectly well-supported theory in the 21st century.

[JoeDoe 2.0]

No offense to anybody, but I do not believe in creationism, only on evolution, and is not because Im an atheist, but Science has proven reliable and there is evidence about evolution, while in creationism I have to take somebody's word for it.

[The_Catto]

I would laugh if i was to learn that the bible was just written by a couple of old fella's havin a few drinks one night and decided to write a story. That would explain a lot i reckon.

 

Anyway, i agree with SithRevan.

I do beleive something must have happened thousands and thousands ... (a VERY long time ago) to disrupt the continum of evolution. I am a Raelian

I like to think that this is not our original planet and i would very much like to visit our original planet ... someday ...

 

But i tihnk ill have to be reincarnated for that.

[JediMaster12]

Oh boy. Evolution...again. I can just hear the call to battle.

 

Before I begin, I am going to say this: as a Christian, I do believe in the Bible but I am also a scientist who views life as a miracle. Needless to say, the concept of evolution doesn't bother as support the theory behind it. Evidence so far has given me no reason to disbelieve it. Achilles you may ponder all you wish how this is possible since we had a lovely discussion about my two hard hats in this world. So with that said, I'll begin.

 

Cave men as far as I know were hunter gather's who barely new how to make a fire. Now that is where the scientfic theory comes in. If cave men were the first people how did they get here? That does not make any sense to me. Because if a Higher being, namely God, did not put them here there would be no other way.

That is my friend evolution, a theory that Darwin came up with and attempted to explain in his book The Origin of the Species. First off, cavemen were not the first bipedal persons. The earliest bipedial primates are the Australopithecines. These guys averaged in height of about three feet and were more apelike in appearance. Then we get the genus Homo with Homo habilus (handy man) and Homo erectus which looked more human like and this can be seen most notably on the cranium where you see the reduction of prognathus and the teeth row becoming parabolic like modern humans. Then we get the anomaly, the Neandertals. These guys are human like in appearance but their skeletal structure is heavily built. It is suspected that these guys went out and tackled their food since there is evidence of injuries that are consistent with bronco busting. Then around the same time we have Homo sapiens archaeus (forgive me if I got this wrong), archaic but anatomically modern humans. These guys left behind behavior that is consistent with the behavior of modern humans and then we finally get to us Homo sapiens sapiens which have been around for about 30,000 years.

 

As to the caveman with a barely workable knowledge of fire, how do you know that? Traditional hunter-gatherer groups do as their name implies, they hunt and gather. They nomadic, moving with the seasons, following the game, often within the area forming migration patterns that have been found in the archaeological record.

 

So anyway here is my theory which you can agree with or not. What I think happened is that our species is much... much older then we ever anticipated it was. What I think might have happened is that our civilization was just as advanced if not more then we are now a long time ago, in a galaxy far... far away ironically. What I think happened is this planet was not our first home. I think we populated another planet at one time, we were on the brink of a war or natural disaster that caused us to try to come to another world and inhabit it, hence the Adam and Eve scenario, then Adam and Eve gave birth to Able and Cain, Cain killed Abel, then was banished into the East of Eden where it was said that he had children. From there though I think something may have wiped out a good number of the population including most of the more intelligent life forms. Leaving the young who eventually became cave men to fend for themselves. That would be a good reason why they were so helpless at first. Then something along the way triggered a chain of events that lead them to create fire, the wheel, civilization and restart our entire population.

Are you one of those people that believe the Maya pyramids are beacons created by the Mayans to summon the mother ship? Where did you get the idea of cave men? I am not going to rag on you about it but it is one theory that I have been exposed to before.The theory behind archaeology, a 300-level course. Man did not create fire but discovered it first off and the wheel was not invented in all places. In Mesoamerica, the idea of the wheel was never conceived. It wasn't practical.

 

Ever wonder how civilization began? Well first agriculture had to develop and as far as I can tell, that took quite a long time after the Pleistocene aka the last Ice Age. That is the basis of evolution: time. The changes that we note in the fossil record are what we can see but we have no way of seeing change of the cellular/tissue level.

 

If you want to apply the Bible to evolution, remember this: a day is but a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day in heaven. I do not take the seven days of creation literally because looking at the geological scale and the fossil record, we can see that it took millions of years for each class of animals like reptiles. They are the oldest dinosaurs if you look at it that way. I study the Bible because I study myth as part of my study field and from experience I know not to take everything literally. With everything that we have up to this point, I think that creation did take place but within the confines of our reality and that was millions of years.

 

I know that I have been longwinded today and I know it must not make sense to peope who aren't religious and it sound heretical to people who are but that is what I think. I have the science in front of me and I am not going to deny it just because the Church says it's wrong. I know it is hard for people to see that I can accept scientific theory and still cling to Christian ideals and it's difficult for me to explain. I look at life as a miracle. The fact that it exists is a miracle and the more we discover about it is just another door being opened into another world up for interpretation.

[Achilles]

In that case I would not believe in it, because it would be scientifically unsound.

So the "Catholic Church" (I use quotation marks to point out that church leaders number in the hundreds) decides what is scientifically sound and what isn't? Evolution is scientifically sound because they say so, but if tomorrow they we're to reverse their decision (not based on something from the scientific community) it would not be?

 

I don't know what protestant belief is on the necessity for following their spiritual leaders, so I couldn't say. But I do find it silly that Protestant sects discredit a perfectly well-supported theory in the 21st century.

You're still not answering the question.

 

Based on how you responded to the first one, I don't think a response here is necessary.

[Ambrose]

So the "Catholic Church" (I use quotation marks to point out that church leaders number in the hundreds) decides what is scientifically sound and what isn't? Evolution is scientifically sound because they say so, but if tomorrow they we're to reverse their decision (not based on something from the scientific community) it would not be?

 

No. I'm saying the Catholic Church wouldn't support it if it wasn't scientifically sound. Not the other way around.

 

It's not that big of an issue within the Church. We back scientific study (so long as it is moral), because it allows us to better understand the universe and world God created for us. In fact, I don't think there's an official doctrine on evolution. The doctrine is simply that it is good to look at things both scientifically and religiously. For most of us, that means acceptance of a theory which is perfectly scientifically sound.

 

You're still not answering the question.

 

Based on how you responded to the first one, I don't think a response here is necessary.

 

Given that you completely misunderstood my answer to the first one, I guess I can respond again.

 

And again I must give you the same answer. I don't know what Protestants believe in the first place. If they think that religion and science totally clash and thus science should be shunned, I would question the validity of that doctrine. But I question a lot of Protestant doctrine, so it's really not that big of a deal.

[Achilles]

No. I'm saying the Catholic Church wouldn't support it if it wasn't scientifically sound. Not the other way around.

Sir, I am not interested in what the Catholic Church believes. The specific question was: If the Catholic Church did not endorse the theory of evolution, would you continue to do so? I thought you had answered that in your previous reply but it seems now that I may have misunderstood.

 

It's not that big of an issue within the Church. We back scientific study (so long as it is moral), because it allows us to better understand the universe and world God created for us. In fact, I don't think there's an official doctrine on evolution. The doctrine is simply that it is good to look at things both scientifically and religiously. For most of us, that means acceptance of a theory which is perfectly scientifically sound.

What are the criteria used to determine what is "moral"? If something scientific contradicts something religious, which view is formally adopted?

 

Given that you completely misunderstood my answer to the first one, I guess I can respond again.

Fair enough.

 

And again I must give you the same answer. I don't know what Protestants believe in the first place. If they think that religion and science totally clash and thus science should be shunned, I would question the validity of that doctrine. But I question a lot of Protestant doctrine, so it's really not that big of a deal.

I'm non concerned with Protestants. Unfortunately, this doesn't answer my question. Please allow me to restate it: Should members of other churches believe in evolution even if their spiritual leaders don't? I'm asking specifically for your opinion. Not your viewpoints on the doctrines of other churches. My apologies if that was not clear before.

[Ambrose]

What are the criteria used to determine what is "moral"?

 

As an example, stem cell research. The destruction of a fetus is considered immoral by the Church because it kills a soul, not because it suggest teachings contrary to Christianity. THAT is the moral ground on which the Church stands on science.

 

If something scientific contradicts something religious, which view is formally adopted?

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that reason and faith cannot contradict. That being said, the Church continues to support scientific research in confidence that science cannot tear down the Church. It may change our understanding of God's creation (astronomy and evolution certainly did), but it will never discredit them.

 

Should members of other churches believe in evolution even if their spiritual leaders don't? I'm asking specifically for your opinion. Not your viewpoints on the doctrines of other churches. My apologies if that was not clear before.

 

That's a bit of a ridiculous question. Of course I think people should adopt the views that I personally hold in spite of opposition because I, personally, believe that I am right. If I had my way every Muslim would believe that Jesus was the messiah, even if their leaders didn't like it. Likewise, I'd like for every fundamentalist Christian to embrace tangible reason as Catholics do, in spite of what their spiritual leaders may say, because I personally believe that I am right. Not sure where you're going with this.

[SilentScope001]

That's a bit of a ridiculous question. Of course I think people should adopt the views that I personally hold in spite of opposition because I, personally, believe that I am right. If I had my way every Muslim would believe that Jesus was the messiah, even if their leaders didn't like it. Likewise, I'd like for every fundamentalist Christian to embrace tangible reason as Catholics do, in spite of what their spiritual leaders may say, because I personally believe that I am right. Not sure where you're going with this.

 

What if you're wrong?

 

EDIT: What I mean is...prehaps keeping skepticism, in whatever faith, creed, of belief system you have, is always nice. The possibiltiy that you could be proven wrong is indeed a humbling experience one must always take into consideration. This is not meant to attack anyone's beliefs, but I just want to keep that in mind...

[Ambrose]

What if you're wrong?

 

If proven wrong I will (and have) change my believe and subsequently wish that everyone else would adopt my newfound position.

 

Either way, the question was, do I think people should believe in evolution even if their religious leaders denounce it. The answer is, of course I do, because I believe those religious leaders are wrong.

 

EDIT: What I mean is...prehaps keeping skepticism, in whatever faith, creed, of belief system you have, is always nice. The possibiltiy that you could be proven wrong is indeed a humbling experience one must always take into consideration. This is not meant to attack anyone's beliefs, but I just want to keep that in mind...

 

He asked for my opinion:

 

I'm asking specifically for your opinion.

 

Thus, I gave it.

 

I've changed my beliefs in the past and expect to in the future. But I'm being honest. Obviously I think that I am right. I wouldn't believe what I believe if I didn't think it was right.

[SilentScope001]

Ah, okay. My bad. Just a note though:

 

Either way, the question was, do I think people should believe in evolution even if their religious leaders denounce it. The answer is, of course I do, because I believe those religious leaders are wrong.

 

Wouldn't those new believers basically creating a brand new religious sect, or even a new religion, somewhat of a schism? Now, creating a brand new religion if you dislike the teachings of the old religion's leaders is pretty good...but it just sounds a bit strange a concept?

[Achilles]

As an example, stem cell research. The destruction of a fetus is considered immoral by the Church because it kills a soul, not because it suggest teachings contrary to Christianity. THAT is the moral ground on which the Church stands on science.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of anything resembling a soul. It is strictly a religious device.

 

Here's a question for your regarding souls and stem-cell research: Stem-cell research is considered immoral by religious people but not by scientists. The argument put forth by the religious community is that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. Fine.

 

The rare (but not incredibly rare) case of identical twins is caused when a embryo splits into two during the first trimester of pregnancy. Where does the 2nd soul come from? In the case of triplets, where does the 3rd soul come from? If new souls are not introduced but the soul is split, what implications does that have on the afterlife? Do all the siblings have to be dead before the soul is allowed into heaven.

 

Stay with me now. Sometimes twinning can occur when two eggs are fertilized by two sperm. When carried to term, these babies are fraternal twins (born at the same time but not identical). Sometimes, in the early stages of pregnancy, one zygote will be absorbed by the other. The remaining zygote is called a chimera. Does the chimera have two souls? If not, where does the other one go?

 

Now that we've potentially blown a big hole in the idea that this unproven thing called soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception, when would it enter the embryo?

 

This is just one of many cases where science does not support the religious doctrine and religion turns its back on science.

 

This is a great example of one of the conflicts, but does not address my specific question of which criteria are used. If you don't know that's ok. I'm only trying to encourage you to entertain the questions.

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that reason and faith cannot contradict.

But it happens all the time. The Catholic Church's unreasonable (literal context) stance on contraception is literally life-threatening to the citizens of several third world countries. It's not even a matter of a debate with physicists or biologists, but a debate with medical health professionals and charitable aid workers. Your assertion is not true. Furthermore, the evidence shows that when reason and faith contradict, faith wins.

 

That being said, the Church continues to support scientific research in confidence that science cannot tear down the Church. It may change our understanding of God's creation (astronomy and evolution certainly did), but it will never discredit them.

I think you're being much more charitable than most historians would be.

 

That's a bit of a ridiculous question. Of course I think people should adopt the views that I personally hold in spite of opposition because I, personally, believe that I am right. If I had my way every Muslim would believe that Jesus was the messiah, even if their leaders didn't like it. Likewise, I'd like for every fundamentalist Christian to embrace tangible reason as Catholics do, in spite of what their spiritual leaders may say, because I personally believe that I am right. Not sure where you're going with this.

No sir, I'm afraid you're still missing the question. I'm not concerned with whether or not you think people should adopt your views. I'm asking if you think that other religious people in other churches should go against the doctrines of their church if they don't agree?

 

Let me try this another way.

 

If the Catholic Church told you not to believe in the theory of evolution any longer, however you still felt that the theory of evolution was the best explanation for modern biology, would you change your belief? Yes or no?

 

If another person in another church (say Islam) was in the same situation as above, should that person discontinue their personal believe and adopt that of their church? Yes or no?

[JediMaster12]

I'm asking if you think that other religious people in other churches should go against the doctrines of their church if they don't agree?

Hell ya I think so Achilles. I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic. Ever since high school, I started rejecting tenets of Catholicism. I don't believe in saying the Hail Mary. I don't believe in appealing to saints. The idea that I have to confess my sins to a priest for forgiveness is laudable. Let's face it, I am no more Catholic than the pope and my family knows it. It doesn't help that I keep bringing in texts like the Gnostics with all intents and purposes of research. While I hold to a few pagan beliefs I am not pagan. Even mach would tell you that. But I think we should not continue along the lines of religion as it brings us dangerously close to being off topic. I would hate to have Mama Jae bring out the beating stick to get us on track.

 

To bring the subject back to evolution, what are your thoughts on the idea that I presented where there are some correlation to the Bible? I am not saying to take it literally. After all I said my piece on evolution.

[Achilles]

What are your thoughts on the idea that I presented where there are some correlation to the Bible? I am not saying to take it literally. After all I said my piece on evolution.

Unless you can turn to a page in Genesis with a diagram of a double-helix on it, I'd say any reference to evolution is either purely coincidental or wishful thinking.

 

Considering the bible tells us that the universe is 6,000 years old, but Mitochondrial Eve dates back 140,000 years, I don't think there's a strong case for evolutionary theory in the Bible.