Its all about FAITH , We dont know what is out there , We arent supposed to know , Faith is the key . Yeah Yeah so Im a Church Freakshow to you guys , i really dont care . ------------------
I'm with you Cohen. God created the Universe, the Universe has evolved, etc. in God's vision. When man evolved, something happened that set him appart from every other creature. That was God's intervention in evolution. ------------------ All your base are belong to us
Pure fiction. The deathbed statements attributed to Darwin have long since been debunked. They were created out of whole cloth by an evangelist named Lady Hope who was nowhere near Darwin's death bed. And frankly, even if Darwin had denounced his own work and spent his last days talking about what a great guy Christ is, it would invalidate neither the theory nor the evidence for evolution, which is overwhelming. Nor would it lend any credibility to creationism, for which there is no evidence at all.
Cohen -- If God was responsible for evolution, why is evolution not addressed the Bible (either directly or indirectly)? Does that mean Genesis is false? According to the Bible (through geneology of Jesus), the earth is only a couple thousand years (something like 6-7000). Evolution by itself would date it far older than that. Was the bible wrong? ------------------ Hey now, Hey now, don't Dream it's over...
I agree with Cohen. And Stone cold, the world is only 6000 or so years old according to the bible if you take the seven days of creation literally, which obviously they aren't supposed to be. ------------------
-There are six main fields of study, where much research and experimentation has been done, that provide evidence for evolution: comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental/correlational studies, and paleontology -None of these areas can rule out a God, of course, because by definition a God could create anything he or she wanted, including a world with features consistent with the evolutionary process. This exemplifies the fact that religious/mythical explanations are not scientific. -As Stephen Jay Gould explains, scientific explanations are not distinguished from religious/mythical ones because they are “true,” but because they are testable, falsifiable (it is possible to obtain evidence both in support of and in refutation of them- you can try to prove them “wrong”), and attempt to explain as much as possible with few starting assumptions. Science is parsimonious, self-correcting, and based in logic and the idea of replicability (related to testability/falsifiability). religious theories and evolutionary theories certainly can "co-exist" in the context of both FAITH and SCIENCE. ------------------ [This message has been edited by JayZ750 (edited February 24, 2001).]
SFR -- Please point to the appropriate chapters in the Bible where it says Genesis was not to be taken literally. ------------------ Hey now, Hey now, don't Dream it's over...
If you truely believe in a faith (regardless if its Evolution or Creationism) you must first argue your own faith and support the opposite side. I mean by this, you do not have the first clue about the bible, so how can you even try to argue this? To answer your statement, Genesis created the world in '7 Days'. Regardless if you believe in God or not, it is understood that God is indefinate, so a day to God does not translate a day into mankind. In the first day, he created Earth. Maybe this 'one Day' took billions of cycles around the sun. It goes on to say, on the 6th Day, he created Man. In terms, were are still in the '6th Day', till the end of Mankind comes (via Revelations), and from there it speaks of peace ... where God will not have to work to help Man (miracles ect ...), and there will be no Earth. So this is when the 7th Day happens, and he 'rests'. So in terms, days '1-5' could have taken any amount of time, and ever perhaps, taken place at the same time. The earth could have been created by Big Bang Theory, animals could have evolved, plants could have evolved, who really knows? But the point is, Man did NOT evolve, he was created seprately. The intelligence diffrence from Man and everything else it too overwhelming to say man evolved. I heard of Darwin claiming Creation too before, but I don't know if its true. Take a moment and think if it were true ... Could you not imagine how many Christians there would be if Jesus debunked the existence of God? If Jesus did, I myself would look upon every Christian as some blind, ignorant, r****d. So YES,it does make a diffrence if he support Creationism or not, because everyone claiming Darwism would be considered a fool. Now im just waiting for the naive person to bring up the question, "If God is all good AND all powerful" . . . ------------------ Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last! [This message has been edited by Space Ghost (edited February 24, 2001).]
Numeorus people have come up with the idea of evolution. Darwin is just who we associate with the idea because he was "the first." In actuality, evoltution comes from many areas, including uniformitarianism, which says that the same processes that acted thousands of years ago still act today, as well as our ever increasing knowledge of genetics, beginning with Mendel's famous experiments. A man by the name of Wallace, for example, independently came up with the idea of natural selection about 20 years after Darwins trip on The Beatle. Darwin had yet to publish his theories though, and only eventually did, with the support and backing of his colleagues, to ensure his name would be recognized. So if Darwin denounced his theory, which most likely didnt happen anyway, it wouldnt have any effect on the enormous amounts of other scientific evidence used to provide for evolution. It makes sense that if Jesus denounced the existence of God, there would be a lot of stupified Christians, cause Jesus is suppossed to be the true son of God. Its not like there was another guy around the same time claiming to be the son of God. Darwin's importance is as the first person to recognize the possibility of natural selection. He is not the end-all on the subject, so it doenst really matter if he beleived in creationism or not. ------------------
I found an Almond Joy, a Tootsie Roll, a Snickers, and a Dog Turd. They are similar. That doesn't make them related. A Tootsie Roll will never be a Dog Turd-- well maybe! ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com
Space Ghost -- You said: "If you truely believe in a faith (regardless if its Evolution or Creationism) you must first argue your own faith and support the opposite side. I mean by this, you do not have the first clue about the bible, so how can you even try to argue this? To answer your statement, Genesis created the world in '7 Days'. Regardless if you believe in God or not, it is understood that God is indefinate, so a day to God does not translate a day into mankind. In the first day, he created Earth. Maybe this 'one Day' took billions of cycles around the sun. It goes on to say, on the 6th Day, he created Man. In terms, were are still in the '6th Day', till the end of Mankind comes (via Revelations), and from there it speaks of peace ... where God will not have to work to help Man (miracles ect ...), and there will be no Earth. So this is when the 7th Day happens, and he 'rests'. So in terms, days '1-5' could have taken any amount of time, and ever perhaps, taken place at the same time. The earth could have been created by Big Bang Theory, animals could have evolved, plants could have evolved, who really knows? But the point is, Man did NOT evolve, he was created seprately. The intelligence diffrence from Man and everything else it too overwhelming to say man evolved." First off, I argued nothing in my initial post, I posed a question. I would implore you not to ignore the meat of my posts so you can take digs at my beleifs. Secondly, let me clarify -- I am Atheist, I do not beleive in the exist of any God and so statements like, "Regardless if you believe in God or not, it is understood that God is indefinate, so a day to God does not translate a day into mankind." ar wholly meaningless to me and any other like minded individual. Thirdly, you didn't answer question -- you responded with unfounded (by your own admission) conjecture about what 'might' have happened. This seems to run contrary to your initial statement as to successful argue, one must not only state one's beleif but also, support said arguement. Now, lets try again. Please provide evidence that Genesis spanned longer than said '7 days'. Also, please address my initial question as to where evolution, or any concept like evolution, is addressed int he bible. One more question for you while you're at it. In Genesis, it says, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Gen 1:3). The it goes on to state, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" (Gen 1:14). We know that our light is supplied by stars (which predated our Earth) and yet they appear after light on this planet. How can this possible? ------------------ Hey now, Hey now, don't Dream it's over...
Stone Cold, what I meant is that one day to a human is not necessarily the same thing as one day to God. I still believe evolution occurs, but it was the work of God. ------------------
Space Ghost -- As to not lose this argument in the mess that was my last post, I'm giving this one a clean slate. You said: "But the point is, Man did NOT evolve, he was created seprately. The intelligence diffrence from Man and everything else it too overwhelming to say man evolved." Where's your proof? Perhaps if you specified the manner of intellignece of which you are speaking, I could accomodate you witha counterpoint. As is, the argument is little more than generality. ------------------ Hey now, Hey now, don't Dream it's over...
But the point is, Man did NOT evolve, he was created seprately. The intelligence diffrence from Man and everything else it too overwhelming to say man evolved. The interesting thing to look at is not the intelligence of man, but the intelligence of primates as a whole. Primates in general ALL have abnormally large brains for their body size. Humans are at the very far end of this spectrum, but it is not too suprising given the competitive advatages of intelligence. ------------------
Space Ghost, Throughout the entire history of mankind there have been myths, gods, religions, and stories to try to explain why we exist or how we came to be. What makes you think that in the scope of 4 billion years that your religion's 2,000 or so year old Bible is any more factural or thruthful than that of much older civilizations? What evidence (there's that sticky term again) do you have that the Bible is not a book of fairy tales told down from generation to generation and finally written down. If I wrote a book with the type of stories that are written in the Bible today it would be labeled a work of fiction. I honestly cannot wait until the existence of extra-terrestrial life is discovered, that is going to be a busy day at church! ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
mrpaige, I find it interesting that people want to point out that man did not decend from apes but from a common ancestor. What was that common ancestor if it was not an ape? Something more primitive? I've always found that a meaningless distinction. Concerning the article: Will scientists ever learn to make the distinction between "I can't think of another possible way to explain this" and "There is no other way to explain" (as was said in the article)? How many times in history have scientists said, "I can't think of any other way to interpret this data," only to have their "only possible explanation" disproven at some point in the future? The latest discoveries will not move change this from the THEORY of evolution to the LAW of evolution. Until evolution can be falsified, it is theory--as is creationism. And please, don't use micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution. ------------------ The sky is falling! [This message has been edited by TraJ (edited February 24, 2001).]
All the evidence does support the theory of evolution. I've studied my fair share of Anthropology, and I do believe in evolution, but when I take a step back and look at the big picture, I question myself. As far as the evolution vs creationism debate goes, think about this. Try and explain "existence" for me. It's really mind boggling why we're all here. You have to believe there is a god or some higher power who is at work. I just can't find any reason or logic to the fact we're in this boundless frontier known as space with no beginning and no end. Try and convince me "something" has not created all of this. ------------------
To add to the mix, you might want to take a look at the event in Earth's history known as Pangaea, when the one massive continent broke into the 7 we know today over a long period of time. That was probably the event in history that led to the major evolution, and why there is the gap in evolution or the "missing link." Species became more definable after this due to, like I think Jay-Z said, reproductive isolation. ------------------
I still haven't heard responses to the fact that the MISSING LINK HAS BEEN FOUND. How do Creationists respond to this fossil? Not human, not animal. What do you think it is? If you *really* want to take the Bible literally, the world is only a few thousand years old. In fact, the world is LESS old than Egyptian civilization. How do you account for the fact that Egyption records precede the necessary biblical dates? Next, the Big Bang keeps on passing every test. We know, for example, that the world exhibits the perfect background radiation for such an event. We know that the #'s add up regarding the dispersion of matter, and the velocity of matter away from a signle point. Yet this necessitates that the universe be billions of years old. I haven't taken physics or biology since freshman year, but I go to a Catholic school. It's teaching evolution as FACT. Jesuit priests actually promote a creation-evolution theory about the progression of the universe. I took an interesting course called "God and Science" last semester. There are a number of Christian theorists who attempt to reconcile theism with scientific evidence. You may want to examine the works of Arthur Peacocke, and from a fully scientific standpoint, Steven Jay Gould. Oh, and about the ape issue... apes still exist because nothing has driven them extinct. Evolution is a purely contingent, localized process. An organism succeeds or fails in a particular place because of LOCAL conditions. This doesn't speak to the overall "value" of the organism, merely it's ability to survive in its current position. Finally: the statistical sampling that indicated that evolution should have taken longer does *not* take into account "punctuated equilibrium." There have been several (I think 7, but am not sure) periods of intense growth among species, as a result of massive stimuli. Look into this. If you want to believe that God created the Earth with all the signs of having been older in order to deceive/and or test us, that's fine. But I prefer to apply "Ockham's Razor" here. All things being equal, the Simplist explanation is usually the best. ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
