h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks for the comment, Ste. I think more often than not, people go into debates like this one with a partuicular argument and image in mind, and so are unwilling to debate or evaluate their theory.

Scientists seem to go into debates with the idea that they have a complete picture of the way the universe works, assured that they have all the answers they need. And Christians tend to go into arguments limited by their own images of God, convinced that God must fit in with their image of the Universe, not thinking for a second that things might be a lot more copmplicated than they really are.

Just because evolutionary theory has problems with it doesn't mean the Earth is 10,000 years old. And just because it appears that the Universe is 13 billion years old doesn't mean there's no God.

-Eagle 1

"I think more often than not, people go into debates like this one with a partuicular argument and image in mind, and so are unwilling to debate or evaluate their theory."

Agreed. I was just about to go off on one regarding intelligent design the way I understood it (I actually still managed to, albeit stripped down ), but I thought I should check to see if that was what you were talking about . Glad I did.

"Scientists seem to go into debates with the idea that they have a complete picture of the way the universe works..."

I disagree with this point. Speaking for myself, I would go into a debate with the idea that we *don't* know how all of the universe works, far from it, but that is no need to invoke a god to explain things. Science (sometimes begrudgingly) admits it just doesn't know, but it might do in the future. And my personal view of Christianity is that it is compatible with any scientific theory out there (anyone that disagrees I label a fundamentalist and proceed to tear them to shreds /joke).

"And just because it appears that the Universe is 13 billion years old doesn't mean there's no God."

And we come back to my main point that I say quite often in these debates: Science cannot and therefore should not deal with the question of God. It is outside its sphere of influence.



Ste

There is no real reason why either "theory" should be either right or wrong. And philosophically neither can be proved or disproved.

The "faithfully fanatical" viewpoint is that God created things just as we find them today, fossils, evidence for evolution, and all. If you find this hard to swallow, just think that you can't really prove that you were not created a split second before reading this, given that an all-powerful being could create you just as you are, with all your memories, and all the surrounding people with all their memories, all the facts and artifacts, and so on...

What is really fascinating are the parallels:

* Let there be light - - - a really, really big bang?
* creation in seven days - - - relativity says that seven days *here* can be thousands of years *there*, if we are travelling at speeds near that of light.
* and more if you start really looking

Now suppose God created everything. How do you suppose a really super intelligent super being would work? (I know this is presumptuous, but bear with me). Would (s)he arrange everything so that it needed constant supervision of every bio-chemical reaction, or would you expect the system to be set up so that it could run itself without micro-management? Would you expect it to include the ability to adapt to changes, incorporate regulating mechanisms, and ... evolve? I would.

And you know what? The most fanatical people on this subject have never read their Bibles. Not cover to cover, no, just the first few chapters of Genesis. They don't seem to know (or don't want to know) that there are two different accounts of creation there. That's right - two. Different. There's the Seven Day account, and the Garden of Eden account. And they are not the same. And I'm not talking typos either. Woman formed from man? Only in one of the accounts. In the first account: "So God created man(kind) in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27) "...while he slept (God) took one of his ribs ... and the rib which God had taken from the man he made into a woman ..." Gen 3:21,22. (From RSV)

Go check it out critically, and don't fall into the trap of thinking that the second chapter follows the first chronologically - critical reading will show you that it does not.

Any work of literature that has srvived 5,000 or so years must be worth checking out.

Caron, we're not saying that the Bible is valueless, nor are we saying that a belief in God automatically disqualifies you from believing in evolution. The question seems to be how can one reconcile a creationist viewpoint of the earth is only so old (see Bishop Usher's account) and everything on the earth NOW (at least, flora and fauna, us included) was created specifically that way, with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the age of the earth is much older, for one, and that things evolve, hence evolutionary theory.

and actually, there are more creation stories than two. There is also the story involving Lilith, Adam's first female companion, who decided not to stick around when he asserted that dominion over every being meant her, too.

Which I guess sort of leads me to a roundabout sort of question: why are there so many creation myths involving a flood of some sort? Ancient Sumerian and Babylonian myths involve flooding, as do some Native American myths. Is there any scientific reason why we can't agree that at some point, perhaps because of the ending of an ice age, that there *was* some sort of monumental flood?

A lot of the flood myths seems to be coming from white man's influence and such. But it does seem some local flood might have happened in Russia when the Black Sea was formed.

To be honest, I think most people believe in evolution because they've been told that is how it is by somebody who seems to be smarter than they are. Which is why creationism is dangerous. It is not scientific, it is full of lies and misconstructions and most of it doesn't stand up to a second glance. But if you are able to say it with the same authority as evolution and make it sounds scientific, then you can make people believe it.

The 7 days thing could be an analogue of evolution. But then it is a really bad one isn't it? If there is intelligent design going on, I don't see any reaosn why it should be the Jewish god doing it except cultural bias. It could be any god.

Ste: Thanks for the reply to my last post. I know you deal with evolution (or clear effects thereof) on a day-to-day basis, and I like to think that I know enough about it that my judgement is based on knowledge too. But what I was asking was about Everyone Else (you know, the ordinary people who aren't educated like wot we is) who have never been interested enough to learn anything more than the basics of evolution. Many/most (at least in this country) accept evolution as a fact, but don't have a full understanding of it, let alone of the evidence to support it. Don't they simply believe, in the same way that Creationists (at least, those Creationists who have never looked into evolution) do?

The 'Darwin's Deathbed' thing isn't nearly the only one - for example Creationist literature is full of misquotes that reverse the meaning of the original statement. Then there's the whole 2nd Law thing - when that's promoted by a Professor of Biochemistry, it's hard to see how it could be anything other than a deliberate lie. So, Caron and Eagle1 - do you get as upset and frustrated as Evolutionists do about this kind of thing?

Montana: One good reason is the complete absence of any evidence in the geological record. Another is the way that all these flood records are so different and so scattered that it's hard to see them as being consistent. It just seems to be a common (but not universal) theme.

Caron: also animals being created before/after Adam in the 2 versions. One problem with seeing Biblical 'days' as 'ages' is that the ordering is all wrong, e.g. plants get formed before the sun. Whoops! But yes, evolution does not conflict with the initial creation of life being divine. Occam's Razor states that, since biogenesis (life from non-life) could have happened by known physical and chemical processes, we should not invoke an otherwise unknown God. But Occam's Razor is a philosphical principle, not a scientific proof.

Gif

Okay, back to the flooding issue for a moment....

This is why I am so interested in perhaps Noah's flood having a basis in reality, as well as other creation myths that contain a flood:

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues95/apr95/missoula.html

The amount of water, and the fact that the ice dam/flooding cycle happened some number of times (it's hazy, but I want to say something like more than 10) leads me to believe that the geologic record for this kind of flooding could be extremely mixed up. Layers of sediment on top of scourged basalt bedrock make Lake Missoula a confusing geologic puzzle.

That's not to say that I think Noah's flood was earthwide, but if you look at the modes of travel, and realize that even in the middle ages, people seldom went more than 20 miles from home, it could certainly seem like the entire world was underwater. Add to this the realization that an ice dam, or some other blockage, would take years to build up, and only seconds to explode....okay, I know it doesn't explain the rain, but I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here.

Gif:

"But what I was asking was about Everyone Else..."

I mentioned the fact that I deal with genetics and related stuff daily, but I also said that seeing as I am not a geologist, like most people, that I have to trust their conclusions. Have faith in them if you will. And with other people who don't directly participate in science, but understand it, this is the case also, but with the whole shebang.

My point was that instead of having faith in a god, to "believe" that evolution occurs you have to have faith in other people. Faith that they are honest and have followed the scientific method. There are checks on these two things within science itself (peer reviewed journals etc), so that in effect justifies that faith which puts it above the blind faith in a deity. It also values people above god, which is something that is not done enough in my opinion.

The "life violates the second law of thermodynamics" drivel that is wheeled out by creationists really drives me insane . It is just *wrong*. . They are just demonstrating their incompetance and lack of ability to think for themselves.

*Remembers back to Josh's Peer Review escapade*

Or is it a case of creationists just happening to trust the wrong people?

Ste

Floods - I'm sure someone else has already thought of this, but I don't recall reading it elsewhere. Of course, as you get older there's lots of things you don't recall...

It seems generally accepted that there have been several ice ages.

During an ice age the vast amount of water locked up in the ice lowers the sea level drastically. Some scientists estimate that the entire continental shelf system is exposed, and that there may be a connection with ice ages and the shape of the shelf. But I digress.

At the end of the ice age the sea level would of course rise dramatically. Now this is not on a forty days and forty nights timescale but nevertheless, on a gently sloping continental shelf, there would be times when the net flooding would be very significant within living memory. Camp fire stories would arise, be told and retold. In this way legends of a great flood could arise within separate, isolated, cultures, on a world-wide scale, and concerning the same epoch.

Of course ice ages could explain a flood, or the end of a flood, but not both within one lifetime, as in the Noah story. Unless of course ice ages repeatedly advance and retreat on a geologically short timescale while following the overall trend of advancing and retreating to a much greater extent on a much longer, geologic, time scale. In other words, when there is a long term trend towrds an ice age, it could be a whole succession of (say) 100 year colder-warmer cycles, which, on the long term average, are getting colder. A bit like global warming today - it's difficult to see a 1/4 degree trend on top of a 50 degree (Celcius) seasonal variation. Again in a gently sloping region, this could produce both a dramic flood and a recession in a single generation.

There is also ample sedimentation and other evidence indicating flooding in historic civilizations. It could also be that statistically you will get one dramatic flood every couple of centuries. However such floods would be reasonably well dated, whereas "Noah's Flood" appears to be prehistoric.

By the way, according to the Bible, the world (inc. man) was created in 6 days, not 7. God took the last day off. Pedantic, moi?

Noah's flood, or at least a flood of equal proportions, is first mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh, of Mesopotamian origin.

thank you, Neugen! That's the creation myth I was trying to come up with. Wasn't in Ineleuki (spelling?) who caused the flood?

Enlil is the god who unleashes the great flood.

I remember reading a book trying to prove that the bible was right. One part of it was the guy dug down somewhere and found mud. Then he dug down somewhere else and also found mud. And in a third place he also found mud. His conclusion was it proved a worldwide flood. Amazing.

In earlier times there were probably a lot of settlements along the coast lines. And ice ages might have wiped them out with floodings. Humans have probably been in Europe for 100.000 years. The idea that we have only had civilization in the last 10.000 means there was an awful waste of time. Maybe the previous ones just got any traces of them wiped out by ice ages. They are finding some interesting things just off the coast of India and South America.

Actually, the species Homo Sapiens as far as is known is 100,000 years old. They didn't come into Europe until about 30-40,000 years ago as evidenced by the dying out/assimilation of the Neandertals.

Of course it's hotly disputed because of evidence from Australia that someone may have been living there as long as 60,000 years ago.

As for how long the Neandertals were in Europe, the answer is maybe 80,000-100,000 years ago, but no one really knows.

But that's more than you probably wanted to know.

-Eagle 1

Neandertals didn't die out. I distinctly remember one in junior school, his name was Norman.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

yes, I remember having them in high school too. They tended to play contact sports and lift weights a lot.

Okay, no one get offended, but a friend of mine sent me an amusing little link on certain relgious types. It's not exactly what we're talking about here, but funny nonetheless.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2002/08/07christian.html

A lot of Genesis is derived from Mesopotamian history/ mythology/ religion. That's where Abraham started out from, after all. When Abraham's clan descendants ended up in Egypt a few generations later these stories from the old country would have maintained their sense of identity in a strange land. However garbled they eventually became the Jews took (and take) their history/heritage very seriously.

I thought I'd find that link either funny or offensive or both.
But it just struck me as bizarre.

I thought it was bloody hilarious

Montana.