Captivity?

I'm all giddy about the link above that I posted. I'll tell you why...

In the kingdom of Human Pursuits (entertainment, money, love, happiness, etc.) there are several phyla.

One of these is Phylum: Disciplines. It includes skills that are developed. these can be thinking/analyzing, engineering, athletics, arts, etc.

In this phylum is the Class of Ideas. It involves things that are learned, discovered, studied, and includes religion, philosophy, and science.

In the Cass of ideas is the Order "Science." It includes math, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, medicine, etc.

One branch of this Order is the Family of Mathematics. This involves calculating/manipulating numbers, such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus.

In the Family of Math a new genus has recently come about. Genus: Algorithmics is where calculations/manipulations are made through the use of loops, logical branching, and feedback. This genus was made practical by the proliferation of computers, and includes the quickly evolving fields of games, data compression, simulators, and artificial intelligence, to name a few.

Within this genus -- because of replication, mutation, and competition in the arena of scientific ideas -- a new Species, Evolution, has come about.

Thanks to programs like Avida, the process of evolution -- which was generally only considered in the context of biology -- can now be studied as a form of pure mathematics. As such, it will be able to establish connections between input and output. That is -- just like with Geometry -- postulates, theorems, and proofs regarding evolving systems will emerge from this new branch of math. Through this, we will be able to understand the relationships between different parameters, how each affects or does not affect the others. We can do this in a system where all parts are known and individual parts can be changed in controlled experiments, instead of trying to piece together parts of a humungous puzzle (many of which will never be found) from a single instance. Ideally, we will learn a great deal about how all of the parts interact to produce a predictable "deterministic" output.

This math may not apply in a forward "deterministic" way to life on Earth because life involves random mutation, nor will it necessarily apply in a backward "deterministic" way because we are only looking at a tiny piece of the entire picture. But I think one thing it will prove is that life, as something which is subject to replication/mutation/competition, does evolve. On a higher level it will definitely allow us to see the picture more clearly because we will be able to relate well-established "proofs" and "rules" and "laws" to the process.

Like any science has, I think it will also find use in applications we currently cannot even imagine. I don't think anyone had imagined that trying to measure our velocity upon an "ether" would have led us to discover the means to understand and utilize the release of nuclear energy. I am very excited over what this new branch of mathematics, which is still in its infancy, might have in store for us.

Originally Posted by Clint Boyer

So why was it written as seven days? Many people take that as fact.

People will claim they take it literally, but it cannot be taken literally because the sun was not created until the fourth "day." Therefore "day" MUST be interpreted. It is then a matter of "how do you prefer to interpret the word day" and "in what context was it written." Some people arbitrarily choose to interpret it as a specific period of time that they want it to mean, but that choice does not make their interpretation any more valid than anyone else's.

WHEW!!!!

I am glad I missed this entire discussion...it would have kept me up at night.
And what a seriously LONG read...discussing a topic that has been a source of frustration and argument for longer than ANY of us has been living.
Personally...you can go round and round...and show points to back up either side...what it really boils down to is personal belief.

If you believe in the Christian version of creation...you are basing all of your argument in your deeply rooted faith...even the links that "prove" creation are shown with the assumption that the Christian God is, in fact, real.

If you believe in evolution...your arguments are based in theories that have accumulated through natural observation. Theories that have been expounded on...and added to as evidence of new, unexplainable, organisms...both living and extinct...is found. These theories are not irrefutable...just educated guesses.

And Serp hit it right on the head when he said that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. They are only presented as mutually exclusive by people with closed minds who believe the idea that they invest their faith in must be the correct one. This is called passion...and can lead to some very deeply embraced discussions...as we have seen here...

10+ pages of people arguing over who is correct...when neither side can prove their stance and nobody will concede that the other has ground to stand on...

Personally I am an agnostic...I don't believe in a Christian God (or any for that matter)...but I won't rule it out...really, who the hell am I to say if there is or isn't? I went to a military catholic school in high school. It is at a Catholic abbey in Illinois...run by priests...full JROTC every day all day...I took four years of Theology...have read the bible from cover to cover 3 times...and have had creation presented to me with "irrefutable" evidence. I found it was only irrefutable if you happened to believe in Christianity.

I personally subscribe to the evolution theory...flawed as it may be.
I believe that it isn't far from the truth of matters...just missing some pieces...as any BILLIONS of years old mystery will be.



Just another little comment:

The common Christian explanation for the timeline presented in Genesis (depending on how literal the belief of your sect of Christianity is) is that "In the beginning" (sorry, couldn't help it) days could have lasted for eons...and that men may have lived (once original sin was introduced) for thousands and thousands of years...and our lifespans gradually decreased from our first ancestors, Adam and Eve. At least that is the explanation I have heard from VARIOUS sources...not limited only to the Catholic religion.

Originally Posted by Alias47

They are only presented as mutually exclusive by people with closed minds.

Wow Derek, nothing like alienating your audience before you even make your point.

The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why seemingly educated people get wrapped around the axel over an "idea" that doesn't change the big picture either way. The length of a Genesis day, be it 24 hours or 24 millennia is really inconsequential. Why anguish over it?

Originally Posted by CAV

Wow Derek, nothing like alienating your audience before you even make your point.

Yeah, thanks...
Only the people who put themselves in this category fit...causing a vicious circle of redundancy.

Originally Posted by CAV

The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why seemingly educated people get wrapped around the axel over an "idea" that doesn't change the big picture either way. The length of a Genesis day, be it 24 hours or 24 millennia is really inconsequential. Why anguish over it?

I agree...I was just presenting a definition that has been previously presented to me...for the people who were deliberating the subject in this thread.

Originally Posted by Alias47

for the people who were deliberating the subject in this thread.

With the exception of about five people, most stopped reading this thread about 11 pages ago.

I understand...
I just STARTED reading it today...

I have mixed feelings...wish I wouldn't have missed it...glad I did...LOL

I know the discussion of time has come up repeatedly...just wanted to address the clarification with which I have been inundated on numerous occasions.

I apologize...just couldn't leave well enough alone...you and I are very much alike for having very different opinions of the world...just HAD to put my 2 cents in...



Least you could do is give me a penny for my thoughts so at least I can recoup HALF my money

Originally Posted by Serpwidgets

People will claim they take it literally, but it cannot be taken literally because the sun was not created until the fourth "day." Therefore "day" MUST be interpreted. It is then a matter of "how do you prefer to interpret the word day" and "in what context was it written." Some people arbitrarily choose to interpret it as a specific period of time that they want it to mean, but that choice does not make their interpretation any more valid than anyone else's.

Well, I have investigated the validity of accepting the Bible as literal fact, as Fundamentalism does. I found some real problems with that. Now, I am Catholic, And we interpret the Bible rather than take it literally.

For example, If the Noah story is the literal truth, and we add to it the knowledge we have gained since, then Noah and his family and every animal on board were infected with every parasite and disease in existence. This must be so, using Fundamentalist logic, because only those things Noah saved on the Ark continued to exist.

Second, After finally disembarking, the ravenous predators would consume all the herbivores. No more cattle, giraffes, antelope, horses to repopulate the earth.

Even if the herbivores somehow survive, all their food is gone having been drowned in the waters. And everyone is still infected with parasites and disease.

The mosquitoes would feast on them all and they'd all die from exsanguination.

The gene pools for every surviving species is too small to produce viable populations to cover the earth.

Adam and Eve had three sons (yes three, do your reading). When the sons came of age to select wives and start families, thus populating the earth with humans, where did the wives come from? They did have wives. For an intriguing answer read Genesis 2. I have had Fundamentalists try to come up with their own ideas of where the wives came from. But doing that negates the insistence they place on taking the Bible literally.

So, the fossil record is a hoax? I don't buy that. Seven days, can not mean seven human days. Catholics do not reject evolution as a mechanism or system put in place by God. God did say "Be fruitful and multiply and cover the earth". He must have know how that was going to be made possible. Evolution enables the few life forms present at the beginning to do just that. I do not say that evolution is the only mechanisim at work. Nor do I think we understand life and evolution as completely as we think we understand it. We are obviously still very primitive beings. We have the creative abilities to produce marvelous technology and understandings of the world we live in. Yet, we are incapable of loving our neighbor, being humble, and being good stewards of the Creation. We are not as highly evolved as we believe we are. If we are more enlightened than our distant ancestors, how come more of us don't see that?

Originally Posted by coyote

Catholics do not reject evolution as a mechanism or system put in place by God. We are not as highly evolved as we believe we are.

A lot of catholics due not reject evolution because they don't fully understand it because they were never taught it. As in many places it is not mandatory to teach such basic theories. I am waiting for gravity to be removed from most syllabi soon.

On the idea that we are not as highly evolved as we think we are. Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn. Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment. EVOLUTION has no goal no plan no blueprint no daily goals on advancement it just occurs and we are able to "moniter" it on a few basic criteria.

Originally Posted by CAV

With the exception of about five people, most stopped reading this thread about 11 pages ago.

yeah that's probably about right. I dunno though, I've been with this from the very beginning, have read every post as it came about, and thought about this whole topic more in the past 3 months than I probably have in the past 4 years. Personally, I'm glad to see what has gone on here because this is obviously a very hot topic. People stick to their beliefs. I don't think there is ever going to be any defining proof for either of either creation or evolution that is going to convince the "nonbelievers" from either school of thought. But to educate people and present both sides is, in my opinion, more important than reaching a final answer. At least this way it lets people see things from multiple points of view in an open setting and lets them decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. As for me, I'm stuck with more questions now than when I came into this discussion, so something must be working right. I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one either.