evolution

[necrominator]

Just wondering what do you guys believe about evolution, do you even believe in it? I remember arguing with a kid about it for hours.

[jamesglewisf]

Moving this one from the "Bible Q&A" forum to "The Great Debate."

[Military Mom]

Necro,

Evidence of evolution has been found. Repeatedly. Fossils to me are indesputable proof of evolution. I'm not an expert on the subject, but what I have learned makes sense, is logical and therefore doesn't call for faith.

I remember learning about Darwin and dinosaurs in school as a youngster, but then hearing something different in church on Sundays. I guess at that point was when I realized that the Bible is to be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Sort of like allegory.

The Bible was written duing a time when we didn't have these theories, before we'd developed our technology enough to research the fossils and artifacts we found. Back then, Genesis WAS science class! It was the best explination anyone at that time could offer (without being ostracized, of course.)

Darwinism is still a relatively new theory, when compared with the many others that exist. It is still considered to be radical or bogus by a considerable chunk of the population. If you look back in history, it has always taken humans a considerable amount of time to accept and adjust to new ways of percieveing the world around us. It is common knowledge that it took Galileo's ideas awhile to sink in. Then Copernicus came along and shattered the world's foundation with his wild ideas about the universe NOT revolving around the Earth. With his blasphemous talk of the planets' trajectories being elliptical rather than 'perfect circles.' And Columbus was practically laughed off the edge of the then flat Earth when he suggested that it was actually round.

All these things the normal, mentally healthy public accepts as fact. I know many will still be spouting Creationism from their sweaty deathbeds. But in time, hopefully most people will be able to look at the skeletons of austrolopithicus and homo habilis (sp?) and realize how beautiful the human form is for it's ability to adapt over time towards better survivability and comfort.

I will leave you for now with a smug quote from someone who disbelieves evolution. (Can't think of his name but his words stand out in my mind clear as day...)

"Just look at the Grand Canyon. Explain THAT through evolution!"

MM

PS Somewhere, somebody is driving my old car around with the little Evolve-fish icon still stuck tight to it. Heheheeeeee {devil}

[necrominator]

Well, i believe in evolution to, but many people still dont, remeber the monkey trials and evolution was still prohibited to be teached in some states until 1967.

[Karenluvs6]

This is a terrific topic!
Military Mom totally summed it up with that one post. I do, of course, believe in evolution.
The only thing I ever questioned, and quite often as a child is, where did it all start? That has always stumped me. Of course now, I am older and have beliefs...where I didn't before. But that question always made me wonder.

[Military Mom]

Excellent question, Karen. At this point in time, it is an unknowable query. Mankind couldn't grasp the answer yet- just like a dog couldn't begin to understand how a lightbulb works. My theory is we'll know when we die, and only if the answer is truly of any relevance to us as human beings.

Funny how life is at once so complex, yet so simple when it comes down to it.... {dizzy}

mm

[TWTCommish]

I believe in some evolution - obviously people get slowly taller, animals can adapt to their surroundings over a long period of time, however I do not believe that an ape can become a man, or a fish into a dog. Perhaps one type of bird into, say, a different type of bird, but even that I have my doubts about.

There is no solid evidence one way or the other, so it's a judgement call.

Regarding schools: I feel that in public schools, both points of view should be taught, and it should be left up to the student. I also believe that if a student asks the teacher of their beliefs, the teacher should be able to speak freely in their reply, as long as they don't go into some huge speech.

IE: if the kids keep asking, the teacher should be allowed to keep answering. I think it's terrible that biblical elements are being held from our schools - the "seperation of church and state" was obviously not meant that way, and it is a viable religion that should be presented as a possibility to all students.

[necrominator]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I believe in some evolution - obviously people get slowly taller, animals can adapt to their surroundings over a long period of time, however I do not believe that an ape can become a man, or a fish into a dog. Perhaps one type of bird into, say, a different type of bird, but even that I have my doubts about.

So you dont believe in evolution, evolution is not only man grows taller over 500 years, but aps become humans in 5 million years, why is that so hard to believe?

[Karenluvs6]

it's funny....ppl think they have the answers for everything..but no one knows how it all started!
Your assumption makes a lot of sense MM...maybe we will find out when we die, maybe.

I agree that both points of view should be taught in schools...but teaching things that take so much understanding and belief, should perhaps be taught when children reach a grade where they will comprehend the information. We cannot teach evolution to first and second grade and then tell them, 'you make up your mind'.
It won't work.
As for religion....hmmm.
That is difficult...It would be really hard to bring religion into the schools, simply because there are soooooo many religions...so many beliefs.
They would have to bring in someone different to teach each separate religion...and they would have to find out, from each individual family, what they want their child to learn.
That would be quite a mess!
I don't think it should be against the rules though.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by necrominator
Originally posted by TWTCommish
I believe in some evolution - obviously people get slowly taller, animals can adapt to their surroundings over a long period of time, however I do not believe that an ape can become a man, or a fish into a dog. Perhaps one type of bird into, say, a different type of bird, but even that I have my doubts about.

So you dont believe in evolution, evolution is not only man grows taller over 500 years, but aps become humans in 5 million years, why is that so hard to believe?

Why do you think it is? I just do. It's hard to believe because...
a) I don't think the Earth is that old.
b) It's obviously more plausible for a bird to become another kind of bird than for an ape or an amoeba to become a human being.

I believe in mild evolution - that doesn't mean I have to believe in full-blown Darwinism.

[41mama]

The best short argument against evolution I ever heard was
"Death entered the world through sin." Darwinian evolution is based on survival of the fittest, i.e. death of the non-fittest. This, of course, is a theological argument, not a scientific argument. Anyway I think scientists get smug in their adherence to evolution. When I was a freshman in college I was taught that electrons exist at two points at the same time. I told my professor that I couldn't believe this. He said, "Don't believe it, just use it as a tool to understand how electrons function until a better idea comes along." But it seems that scientists and pseudo-scientists get very attached to the idea of evolution, which really can't be proved. There's a book I own called Darwin's Black Box, which I have only read a couple of chapters of, but maybe I'll pull out and look at in honor of this thread. The point I understood him to be making was that life is more complicated on a biochemical level than evolution gives it credit for being. Christie

[4everHis]

To all,

Before you place a stake in the ground on this issue, look at ALL of the facts...

Originally posted by Military Mom
Evidence of evolution has been found. Repeatedly. Fossils to me are indesputable proof of evolution. I'm not an expert on the subject, but what I have learned makes sense, is logical and therefore doesn't call for faith.

First, You are wrong in saying that it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution. It takes a lot of faith. I'll explain...

You see, everything in this universe shows that there had to be intelligence involved in its creation. You cannot look at the Mona Lisa and think that the paint just fell on the canvas that way. You can't look at a famous sculpture and come to the conclusion that the clay just formed itself. So why do we look at the universe in that light? I think man, for all of his existence, has been trying to deny the existence of God so that he ultimately doesn't have to answer to anyone.

Let's look at our world:
If the earth were any farther from the sun, we would freeze, any closer, we would fry. Is this by chance?
If we did not have a moon that was suspended exactly the perfect distance, and exactly the perfect size, we would have no tides, our waters would become stagnant, and we would die. Chance?
Did you know that water is the only fluid that freezes from the top down? If it froze like other liquids, our waters would freeze, we would die. Chance?
There are billions of species of organisms, bugs, animals, flowers, weeds, trees, and other plants, and let's not forget man, that all live in perfect harmony. Take away a type of flower, the species that need them to survive, die. Chance?
Plants provide oxygen that we need to survive. We provide carbon dioxide that they need to survive. The sun provides essential elements for plants and us to survive (photosynthesis, vitamin D, heat, etc.). Chance?
One looking at this issue must realize the complexity of our universe. You see, Darwin was looking through foggy glasses. He did not have the science that we have today to really understand the complexity of the world around us. In an age of scientific enlightenment, we must come to the conclusion that the world is extremely complex and in no way can be explained by chance.

Darwin thought that the human eye was a very simple lens. Ask any optometrist that you know how complex the human eye is. He/she, will tell you that it could not happen by accident. There is so much happening within the dark mysterious eye, that one with limited intelligence (man) can only imagine the intelligence of its creator. And we haven't even talked about how the brain processes the image reflected in the eye. Darwin also said that the human eye was exactly the same as a chicken's eye. He could not have been farther than the truth. I guess, if Darwin would have lived longer, we might have heard that we came from chickens instead of apes?

Look at the things that we can't even see that affect things all around us: gravity, radiation, radio waves, etc...). If the gravitational force were less (or more for that matter), our bodies would not function properly. Astronauts have problems with key organs if they stay in space too long (outside of a pressure suit). They need to go through constant monitoring upon returning to the earths surface until their bodies stabilize. Radiation, and radio waves? Continually, science uncovers more and more that we don't know or understand about these forces going on around(and through) us. We have no idea how many yet to be discovered forces exist in our universe. And they all formed by chance, right?

Someone said that they believed in small amounts of evolution (otherwise known as micro-evolution). This term means that minor adaptive changes within a species occur over a long period of time. Notice I said "same species?" But it is interesting when you look at the evidence of microevolution, you always see a loss of information in the species as it was passed down through the hundreds of generations. What I mean by that is that the species loses something over time. Some species have been known to change colors - where they lost the original color information, not becoming more colorful. Other species have lost a toe, or other item. In man, we no longer use our appendix. What was it for? Do we still need it? Science doesn't know, but it does nothing today. In every case it is a loss of genetic information.

You see I believe that an intelligent being created the world and everything on it in perfect form and in perfect harmony. He set it in motion and the only thing that has changed is that some of the initial genetic information has been lost over the many generations. Think of copying a cassette tape, then using that copy to create the next copy, then the next, etc. A few generations deep, the copy is not as good as the original. A tape cannot be copied enough times that it will finally turn into a CD. The same happens in our procreative process.

Remember me saying that it does take faith to believe in evolution? It takes enormous faith to think that this incredible world formed by total chance.

{?} As a military mom, I can't believe that you would hold a Darwinist view. I don't know your race, but did you know that Darwin was a racist and a sexist? Darwin said that, according the evidence (his evidence that you praise), that women are far subordinate to men, as are other races outside of the white (Caucasian) race. Is this your view too? I doubt it. I believe that all men (and women, and all races) were created equal. Do you agree?

You must REALLY look at the 'evidence' before you can call it "indisputable proof". As a matter of fact, it is VERY DISPUTABLE, and hardly proof. The Darwinistic propaganda that has infiltrated into our society's everyday thinking is scary. I will return with a few examples of 'evidence' that was taught to you (and me) in school, and it has been found to be lies. Yes, even the perpetrators of many of these hoaxes admit it, but it is still being taught in our schools, because the majority of society still believes what they were taught as a child (as seen in this discussion thread). Even the Natural History Museum in Washington, DC displays some of these exposed hoaxes still today.

I need to dig out some notes I have made on the subject so that I am accurate in what I state. Until then... keep procreating (with your spouse). But be careful, your child might have evolved into a different species than you... ;-D

...especially in those teen years!

By the way, I also have a bit of modern scientific 'evidence' on what really created the Grand Canyon (in only 40 days)...

[Military Mom]

Jeff,

I found your thread to be extremely interesting and enlightening. I think I need to clarify some things about my beliefs for you.

Darwin obviously did NOT have all the answers - I never said I completely subscribed to every single last little one of his theories. He was like the common man of his time in his sexist, racist ways of thinking. No, not all men back then thought that way, but a gross majority of them did. So, that's just a sign the times for him. He is glaringly wrong on many of the points you mentioned, but does a person have to be right about everything to be right about a few concepts? How about you - you aren't right about everything (unless you are my mother or my husband or a few co-workers I have known) {blah} But you know you have some things down pat!

"I think man, for all of his existence, has been trying to deny the existence of God so that he ultimately doesn't have to answer to anyone"

Whoa, Jeff. Where did you come up with this one? I'm an agnostic. I do NOT try to deny the existance of a god. In fact as I grow older I find myself searching at times for it. Saying I believe in evolution does not mean I am trying to deny the existance of a superior being - and certainly not for the reason you named.


Yes, I do believe in chance. It IS amazing, isn't it - the perfection of our world. But Earth's existance as well as all the life upon it does not constitute undeniable indesputable proof of 'god' - and most definately NOT the Judeo-Christian version of *god*. It indicates the existance of a supreme being as a possible cause of the creation of our universe.

As far as why don't our organs function in space - well, I think that one's rather obvious, Jeff. We didn't evolve in a place with no atmosphere or gravity. Yes, conditions on and around the Earth are conducive to life. But who is to say that another type of life - perhaps one that thrives in a methane atmosphere with less or more gravity than that of earth does not exist somewhere in this or other universes (Yes there are multiple universes - still learning about that concept myself.) Mind boggling. So here's where my faith comes in - I think it stands to reason that in the vastness of existance, it is so typical of humans to get hung up on the perfection and 'deliberateness' of our insignificant neck of the woods. (er, universe.)

Just a little food for thought.

I, too believe that there are innumerable forces at work around us that we don't have the brain power to measure let alone understand. We catch glimpses of them - but don't comprehend them. However, we have a fairly firm grasp on many of the concepts we have managed to study. I don't know that they weren't formed by chance - I think it's just easier for MAN to create GODS in order to better understand the world around him on his own terms.

Sorry if anyone finds this offensive - I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here - but I'm not going to go along with the crowd and lie about how I feel to keep the peace. I think there is an intriguing point to be made here - or rather points. We are in the process of making them now.

True - information is lost with every mutation - it is a concept I intend to do further research on in the future. But it has been more than a loss of data - living forms have developed features that allow them to adapt more effectively to their surroundings. That is the evolution I am referring to. But here again - still not PROOF of an intelligent being having created all existance, at least not for me.

Jeff, what does my being a "Military Mom' have to do with my belief in some of the basic concepts of Darwinism?? {confused} Of course there are many holes in the man's thinking - did you expect him as a pioneer in that direction of thought to get it all right the first time? We are still learning about why things are the way they are today and how the past has come to be shaped as it is now.

And hoaxes - OF COURSE they happen. Just like in religion, there is money to be made. Well, a few fake fossils and indian pottery doesn't make the rest of the hard evidence of genetic change occurring a hoax. There are plenty of hard, tangible, in your face objects which have been found and continue to be found that point to the fact that through time, life forms have altered their traits. We can also reason (not believe in our hearts - as in faith) that the purpose of these changes is to provide for a more hospitible existance - to eat more food, faster. To draw more mates to procreate.

Jeff, I hope you can find your notes - I like reading what you have say - even if I don't agree with all of it. {headspin} We just have different ways of thinking.

mm

[TWTCommish]

No, the complexity does not prove a thing - but it heavily indicates it. Anyone who totally accepts Darwin's theories basically is saying that they believe millions of human-like creatures (mutated versions of us, basically) came into existence, but died out.

That's the only way to explain such a complex world living in harmony - the odds say it would've taken millions upon millions of tries - and that's probably rounding down! :)

[4everHis]

MM, I enjoyed reading your reply.

Where I said, "I think man, for all of his existence, has been trying to deny the existence of God so that he ultimately doesn't have to answer to anyone", I was not saying that YOU are saying that. I am saying that mankind in general, as long as there are written texts to prove it, have done this.

I just believe that Darwin came up with a philosophy that a lot of people bought into without looking at the real evidence. Yes, it was back when it was hard to do the research, but today there is no excuse.

I will be back to present more of my own research, but I really need to run right now...

I am going to speak in a few minutes at a local town-hall meeting where the city officials have denied a local church the right to use a public facility for a religious concert. This is in direct violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thanks for the good debate. This is great!

[Military Mom]

Jeff,

Kudos to you for actively making your voice heard. When someone like you with knowledge and will speaks out, it's hard to ignore.

I know there are other scientists out there who have figured it all out far better than Darwin has. It's his voice that became the springboard for the other opinions beyond creationism, and for that I admire him.

As I have said earlier, these are at once questions which burn at our minds as well as lie dormant for years. Existance. Who or what started it? Why? How? What will become of it all? So many questions. This is why I feel we are still amoebas swimming in the soup of ignorance, professing to know the answers because the idea of so much remaining a mystery is too much for the mind of man to bear. Our queries have, as usual, outrun our capabilities.

I think it is beautiful.

mm

[4everHis]

Thanks for the comments. BTW: The City Council unanimously overturned the unconstitutional policies!! {mm}
God Bless America... home of the FREE and the BRAVE!

Back to the evolution topic... Here is a question for you...

If we evolved from some other species, what species? Apes? What evidence would you bring to the table to support your theory?

[rs0522]

If it adds anything to the discussion....


Current evolutionary theory is not strictly Darwinism. The latest theory is called 'punctuated equilibrium'. The short explanation is that species exist for long periods in equilibrium with their environment. During this period, most mutations die out, because the current form of the organisms in the population (evolution always occurs in populations, never in individuals) is well adapted enough to out-compete mutated members.

Every so often, however, periods of high stress occur in the environment. The sudden changes lead to large die-offs of most members of most species. It also tends to lead to larger numbers of mutations (stress, new chemicals in the environment, etc. increase mutation rates in most species). Some of the mutations survive, and then out-compete the survivors in the new, different environment.

Thus mammals existed while dinosaurs ruled the earth. But it wasn't until the comet/meteor hit earth 65 million years ago (if that is what happened) that their warm-bloodedness conveyed enough of an advantage that they could expand into the newly vacated ecological niches when the cold blooded dinosaurs died off.

War is not the best metaphor for evolutionary struggle. It is more like competition for market share. The most successful organisms are not those that live the longest, but those that leave the largest number of viable offspring. Insects live a few months or years, but reproduce extremely successfully. They are considered well-adapted, therefore.

Jeff Welch asked:
If we evolved from some other species, what species? Apes? What evidence would you bring to the table to
support your theory?

Current theory is that modern apes, especially great apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, and so forth, share a common ancestor with humans. When I was in college, this was thought to be Ramapithecus punjabicus from roughly 5 million years ago. Fossil jaws and skulls of this species have been discovered. It is thought that later species, like Australopithecus, then led to Homo erectus, generally considered the first true human, which then evolved into Homo habilus, or 'handy man', and then Homo sapiens. You and I are a subspecies called Homo sapiens sapiens, or 'wise, wise man'. (Whether or not we fit this description is open to debate!) Neanderthal and Cro-magnon man are subspecies of modern humans.

All modern humans are members of the same species. I hope sincerely we do not need to refute a lot of neo-racist crapola about the relative inferiority of certain races of people. The Nazis were extremely poor geneticists, amongst their many other flaws.

There is (to say the least) considerable evidence in favor of evolution. Older fossils tend to be found more deeply buried in the earth, or at least below newer fossils. This makes perfect sense if you think about it. If you had thrown something away by accident four days ago, and something else by accident yesterday, you would expect the first item to be more deeply buried in the trash than the second. I am not aware of any reasonable explanation for this phenomenon from creationists. (My experience has been that they spend most of their time attempting to attack evidence in favor of evolution, and very little producing any evidence in favor of their position.)

One piece of evidence comes from embryology. The human fetus, as it develops in the womb, goes thru a period when it has a three chambered heart like a reptile, and gill slits and a tail like a fish. Creationists have no way to explain this. Evolutionary theory explains it as the fetus following the path of evolution from fish to reptile to mammal to primate, as the older DNA is developed first and the more recently evolved characteristics are expressed later. The neo-cortex, the most specifically human part of the brain, develops last. Again, just what evolutionary theory would predict, but creationists have no explanation.

Evolutionary theory would expect that species with a close ancestor would have more of their DNA in common than more distantly related species. Creationism, which teaches that all species are now and always have been separate, would expect that there would be no correlation between species. However, chimpanzees and humans have about 97% of their DNA in common. Monkeys and humans, thought to be somewhat more distantly related, share about 95% of their DNA. And so on down the line. We have more DNA in common with mammals than with reptiles, because we share (in evolutionary theory) a common ancestor more recently with other mammals than with crocodiles.

You mentioned the appendix. Many species have vestigal structures that evolutionary theory would explain as left over from earlier adaptations. Thus whales have a few hairs left on their jaws, still there from when they were fur-bearing land dwellers. Snakes have vestigal hips from when they were lizards. Examples like this could be multiplied almost without number. Creationism has no explanation.

The power of the theory of evolution is that it offers testable explanations. Creationism starts with a view of the Bible, and attempts to explain away evidence that contradicts that view. We need to go where the evidence takes us, even if it isn't a place we want to go.

To recap - there is no evidence in favor of creationism, other than a desire that part of the Bible being interpreted as literally true. There are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution. Check with an open mind, and see for yourself . If neither has solid, positive evidence, accept neither. But keep in mind that disproving one does not constitute proof of the other.

Regards,
rs0522

[TWTCommish]

No one has proof? Evidence?

Well, for one: your conscience. Without a supreme being there is no absolute right and wrong - just opinions of what is right and wrong. I also don't believe we would have so many flaws and un-necessary things about us if we were the result of billions of years of evolution.

We cry for no particular reason, we have irrational emotions, we fear things, etc. We also have fingerprints that are nearly totally unique - to me these things imply the existence of intelligence behind it all.

That's some of my evidence...some more is that this world is incredibly complex, a few small changes here or there and we wouldn't be able to live in this state - it only took 100 million years to reach this state of amazing balance and harmony? I'd imagine the odds would suggest that it would take a lot longer.

[TWTCommish]

Oh one more thing - I liked your analogy for "market share." If 50.1% of the people in a country speak English, and the other 49.9% speak German, the odds are more than just above average that English will win out - it's just a matter of time usually.

[rs0522]

I think I understand your reply. Please correct me if I seem not to.

You stated:No one has proof? Evidence?

Well, for one: your conscience. Without a supreme being there is no absolute right and wrong - just opinions of
what is right and wrong.Well, I agree, but belief in a Supreme Being does not conflict with a belief in evolution. I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought evolution implied atheism. For theistic evolutionists (this one at least) God imposes order on the universe. I would agree with what I presume is your position, that God created the species. We merely disagree (I presume) on how He did it.

I would expect many evolutionists to deny the presence of absolute right and wrong as well. In other words, we cannot take the presence of absolute right and wrong as evidence against evolution (or in favor of creationism, if that is your argument) without proving first that absolute right and wrong exist.
I also don't believe we would have so many flaws and un-necessary things about us if we
were the result of billions of years of evolution. Evolution does not imply perfection. In fact, evolutionary theory is the only one I am aware of that can offer an explanation of un-necessary things in our structure. They are left overs from previous adaptions. Why God would have created us such that embryos resemble various lower orders as they develop is an unanswerable question to creationists.

We cry for no particular reason, we have irrational emotions, we fear things, etc. Emotion is adaptive. Emotionless humans are at a disadvantage over those with strong motivations. People who fear nothing don't generally live long enough to reproduce. We also have fingerprints that
are nearly totally unique - to me these things imply the existence of intelligence behind it all. Fingerprints are nearly unique because the patterns created by the growth of the pads of the fingertips occur randomly. Evolutionary theory does not claim that the uniqueness of fingerprints confers any advantage on those who have it. The patterns of the blood vessels in your retina is equally unique. Unless your argument is that God gave us fingerprints so that He could tell us apart!

That's some of my evidence...some more is that this world is incredibly complex, a few small changes here or
there and we wouldn't be able to live in this state - it only took 100 million years to reach this state of amazing
balance and harmony? I'd imagine the odds would suggest that it would take a lot longer. But if the world were different, we would have adapted to the differences just as well as we did to this one, and we would wonder how anyone could live in a world without liquid methane. And the generally accepted age of the earth is closer to 5 billion years than 100 million. Life is believed to have arisen shortly after the appearance of liquid water on the earth.

If your position is that the presence of order in the universe argues the presence of God, I would agree with you. But I include evolution as another instance of order in the universe. Why do the laws of nature work? Why is the universe orderly instead of chaotic? I would argue that this is because the order is imposed on the universe from beyond, by God.

Playing the game of 'But where did the universe come from?' is one that can only be won by theists. Science can only go back as far as the Big Bang, which is defined as 'everything that exists in a mathematical point'. If everything in the universe was contained in that point, almost by definition Something outside the universe must have caused and created it. How can you define that which is greater than the universe, that existed before the universe, that caused the universe, that controls the universe, as anything except -

well, you know.

Regards,
rs0522

[4everHis]

rs0522, you said,
The human fetus, as it develops in the womb, goes thru a period when it has a three chambered heart like a reptile, and gill slits and a tail like a fish. ... Evolutionary theory explains it as the fetus following the path of evolution from fish to reptile to mammal to primate ... Many species have vestigal structures that evolutionary theory would explain as left over from earlier adaptations. Thus whales have a few hairs left on their jaws, still there from when they were fur-bearing land dwellers. Snakes have vestigal hips from when they were lizards.

So, let me get this straight...
We came from fish, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, right? Now this was for some reason, that we evolved in this manner; to adapt to our environment and all...

So, one would think that there should no longer be fish, reptiles, or mammals if they needed to adapt and become human. Also, if we evolved from the water and grew hair, why does a whale evolve from land and become less hairy. If we all live in the same environment, it makes no sense that one species is evolving away from the very thing another is moving toward. You 'theory' doesn't hold water (or land). ;)

[TWTCommish]

"Evolution does not imply perfection. In fact, evolutionary theory is the only one I am aware of that can offer an explanation of un-necessary things in our structure. They are left overs from previous adaptions. Why God would have created us such that embryos resemble various lower orders as they develop is an unanswerable question to creationists."

I see it the other way around: God gave us emotion to make us more complete, and because without it we'd be uninteresting and capable of much less in terms of fulfilling his will. Just the way I see it, though.

[4everHis]

rs0522, I see that you are quite far behind on your reading. The myth that you describe as Embryology was published in 1986 by the Readers Digest in their Book of Facts.

Did humans evolve from fish and is this "ancestry" reflected by so-called "embryonic recapitulation" and "vestigial" organs? No, the human fetus never develops gills, tail or a yolk sac, as you and so many others have claimed. This supposed evidence of man's evolution from animals has been resoundingly proven utterly false. This is yet another great evolutionary myth that refuses to die, despite total lack of evidence and its birth in deception. It was very important in the early promotion of evolutionism.

Unfortunately, many people still believe this erroneous evolutionary theory that was once widely taught in schools and still shows up in museums and books.

[4everHis]

RETRACING OUR EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT?

Evolutionists used to say that human embryonic development retraced states in our supposed evolutionary history. Where did this erroneous idea get its start? It began with Evolutionist and German zoologist Ernst Haeckel in his 1876 book General Morphology of Organisms. With supreme audacity it was called the "Biogenetic Law." It was a fraud from the beginning.

A little more history:
Known as 'Darwin's Bulldog on the Continent' and 'the Huxley of Germany,' Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. Born at Potsdam, Prussia (now Germany), on February 16, 1834, Haeckel studied medicine and science at Wurtzburg and the University of Berlin, and was professor of zoology at Jena from 1865 until his retirement in 1909. The turning point in his thinking was his reading of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, which had been translated into German in 1860. In a letter to his mistress, written when he was 64 and had acquired the nickname of 'Der Ketzer von Jena' (the gadfly of Jena), he explained how he began as a 'Christian' but after studying evolution became a freethinker and pantheist. Darwin believed that Haeckel's enthusiastic propagation of the doctrine of organic evolution was the chief factor in the success of the doctrine in Germany.

...He used enormous backdrops showing embryos, skeletons, etc., which has led to his presentation being described as a sort of 'Darwinian passion play!' Haeckel's enthusiasm for the theory of evolution led him to fraudulently manufacture 'evidence' to bolster his views. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary 'family tree' for mankind. His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent "speechless apeman," and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent "fish stage" in human embryos.

Of Haeckel, Richard Milton says, "No errant scientist has been more thoroughly disowned by his colleagues. ...The biogenetic law is no longer taken seriously by embryologists." The human "fish stage" fraud was first uncovered by comparative embryologist Wilhelm His Sr.

Ernst Haeckel later confessed!!

Now, what exactly is this fraudulent theory that the author confessed to?

The "biogenetic law," was summarized in the pithy phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." That mouthful-of-a-phrase means that the development of the embryo is supposed to retrace the evolution of its group (what rs0522 still believes).

As even a leading anti-creationist, Stephen Gould, points out, "the theory of recapitulation... should be defunct today," but even later, Dr. Down named a syndrome "Mongoloid idiocy" because he thought it represented a "throwback" to the "Mongolian stage" in human evolution. It was even once believed that the fertilized egg, for example, would represent our one-celled ancestors, sort of the "amoeba stage." We know that this has nothing to do with the birth defect still today called Down’s Syndrome or Mongoloidism. My Aunt has this dreadful birth defect and I hate to even call it either of those terms because they are so inaccurate.

Sure enough, we start as small, round structures looking somewhat like single cells. But notice how superficial that argument is; the evolutionists were just looking at the outside appearance of the egg cell. If we look just on the outside appearance, then maybe we're related to a marble or a ball bearing - they're small, round things! An evolutionist (or anyone else) would respond, of course, "That's crazy. Those things are totally different on the inside from a human egg cell."

But that's exactly the point. If you take a look on the inside, the "dot" we each start from is totally different from the first cell of every other kind of life. A mouse, an elephant, and a human being are identical in size and shape at the moment of conception. Yet in terms of DNA and protein, right at conception each of these types of life is as totally different chemically as each will ever be structurally. Even by mistake, a human being can't produce a yolk or gills or a tail, because we just don't have, and never had, those DNA instructions. Your statements about the DNA changing through various stages of development are hogwash.

The human egg cell, furthermore, is not just human, but also a special individual. Eye color, general body size, and perhaps even temperament are already present in DNA, ready to come to visible expression. Embryonic development is not even analogous to evolution, which is meant to indicate a progressive increase in potential. The right Greek word instead would be entelechy, which means an unfolding of potential present right from the beginning. That's the kind of development that so clearly requires creative design.

In reviewing the decline and fall of orthodox Darwinism, John Davy points out that even evolutionists see the need for "theories of another kind" (his own emphasis) to explain both the origin and development of distinctive "building plans" among organisms. "Instead of seeing animals as collections of devices for survival, we may have to look at them as more like works of art." Works of art - that's the way creationists have viewed living beings all along!

Want some reading on the subject (and some of my sources – among others)?
--Russell Grigg, "Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit," Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996)
--Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1997)
--Stephen Jay Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrome," Natural History, Vol. 89 (April 1980)
--John Davy, "Once Upon A Time," Observer-Review (London: August 16, 1981).

[4everHis]

A 'living fossil' is a fossil that is of a plant or creature that still exists today. Most of the itme IDENTICAL to the fossil.

Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. The case should be the exact opposite if evolutuion were true. Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.

[4everHis]

Why does tyhe fossil record show that animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata with no proof of ancestors?

David Kitts, a Paleontologist and Evolutionist, states, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."

[4everHis]

There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils.

Huge numbers of fossils exist, so one would expect that there should be ample proof of evolution from this larghe fossil record. Granted, scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, but it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (including the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. There will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.

I still haven't heard of any specific fossil from anyone here that shows any proof of anything transitional at all...

[4everHis]

Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.

Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner states, "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97)

[4everHis]

Many people believe that the it took thousands or millions of years to accumulate the sedimentary rock, but there is increasing evidence that it only took months, days hours, or even minutes!

[4everHis]

Dinosaur and other fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary books. Animals almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust. Such conditions are highly unusual.

In almost all cases, the very existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly indicates catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and preservation. There seems to be no plausible way to explain their existence without these conditions. Huge dinosaurs, schools of fish, and many kinds of animals and plants are found entombed by massive muddy sediments, which hardened into rock. What’s interesting is dinosaurs, fish, man, animals and plants are all found in the same rockbeds, in the same layers, within feet of each other. Nearly all fossils are found in water-laid sediments.

Did you know that trees have been found fossilized across multiple layers of sediment, supposedly thousands of years different in age? Can you explain this?

The explanation is simple. The tree was stripped away by a large amount of water and mud, and settled very quickly beneath a huge amount of water. The tree could not rot because it was instantly preserved under the tremendous amount of pressure. The sediment did not lay down over thousands of years, but very quickly. There is no other explanation!

Sounds like a big flood to me...
I wonder where I've heard about a big, worldwide flood?

[4everHis]

As stated by Marvin Lubenow, a human-fossils researcher, as he was interviewed by Carl Wieland.
In the evolutionary framework there is a rather high degree of conformity because they make it so. If a date for a given fossil does not conform to the theory, at least roughly, it is changed. The history of Skull 1470 - the skull that Richard Leakey found in 1972 - reveals that very clearly. Even though you had consistency of four or five different methods of dating at 2.9 million years, because the skull was too modern' in appearance, for 10 years there was a bitter argument in scientific circles as to the dating of this skull. And it was dated by many different approaches. At first they had conformity at 2.6 million years and then 2.4 million years, and later on they couldn't get conformity at the age they wanted, which is now about 1.9 million years, and so they used other assumptions entirely...This is documented in Marvin Lubenow's book, "Bones of Contention".

[4everHis]

Here is a definition I found of Theistic Evolution:

The belief that the evolutionary account of origins (where everything ascends from a very imperfect state to a more nearly perfect state) and the Biblical account of origins (where everything descends from a perfect state to a very imperfect state) are both true.

Hhmmmm? Makes one think.

[rs0522]

I will have to post the evidence piece meal, as I collect it.

If you doubt that human embryos have gill slits and tails, check Life Magazine for November 1996 for some clear pictures of them. Or look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

or pretty much any text book on human embryology. There are several on the web.

Sorry, got to take the client to lunch. More to come!

[rs0522]

You posted:
So, one would think that there should no longer be fish, reptiles, or mammals if they needed to adapt and
become human. Also, if we evolved from the water and grew hair, why does a whale evolve from land and
become less hairy. If we all live in the same environment, it makes no sense that one species is evolving away
from the very thing another is moving toward. You 'theory' doesn't hold water (or land)
Evolution does not teach that there is one perfect form (humans) towards which all organisms are evolving. There is a huge variety of environments on earth, and in any environment, there are a wide variety of ecological niches which species can exploit. Darwin came up with his theory of natural selection from his experience in the Galapagos Islands, where finches (for example) evolved a huge variety of different species and filled different niches. Some species fed on nuts, and had evolved short, strong beaks. Some fed on nectar, and evolved long thin beaks. The reason these differing adaptions were successful was because the species evolved to fill different niches.

Human beings occupy a very different ecological niche than, say, whales. The evolutionary pressures on each species, therefore, are radically different. We are therefore not moving in the same evolutionary direction.

You further post:
Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct animals. I don't see a lot of dinosaurs around today. How about a living trilobite?

And again:
I still haven't heard of any specific fossil from anyone here that shows any proof of anything transitional at all.. There are several.

The evolution of the modern horse, for example, follows a clear path from eohippus, a four toed leaf eater about the size of a small dog, to modern, single toed, hooved, grass eating horses. The transitional forms are all present and accounted for, and seem to appear in the correct order. Archeoptryx, the famous transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, is another famous example. It has a jointed tail, teeth, clawed wings, and a reptilian pelvis, but feathers and wings. And so forth.

Oops, go to go back to work. More later.

[4everHis]

Originally posted by rs0522
The evolution of the modern horse, for example, follows a clear path from eohippus, a four toed leaf eater about the size of a small dog, to modern, single toed, hooved, grass eating horses.

There is no single dig in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science. This is also very typical practice in evolutionary circles.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable...Where did the story originate? The earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in clay around London in 1841. Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse. Another scientist, Kovalevsky, in 1874, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature (which he thought was 70 million years old) and the modern horse. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture, which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram, which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse.

You saidThe transitional forms are all present and accounted for, and seem to appear in the correct order.Why is that they all apprear to be present and in the correct order? Because they drew it that way, not because they had all of the evidence. This story, like so many others, was concocted to fit the evolutionist's theory.

He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O. C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus". In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?
How do we explain the genetic problems in this theory when there are variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. That is erratic, not linear, as evolutionists like to say things occur.

And to say that the horse has grown progressively over millions of years, as evolutionists suggest, is ludicrous. The modern horses vary enormously in size. The smallest alive today is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 Callable (17 inches) tall and the largest horse today is the Clydesdale. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

[rs0522]

This (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html) is a good site to clear up some misinformation regarding horses and their evolution.

[4everHis]

Originally posted by rs0522
This (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html) is a good site to clear up some misinformation regarding horses and their evolution.
Correction:
This (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html) is a good site to clear up some of misinformation regarding horses and their evolution.

Again, anyone can put something in writing, but with no real (physical) evidence, it's meaningless.

[4everHis]

Originally posted by rs0522
[quote]Evolution does not teach that there is one perfect form (humans) towards which all organisms are evolving. There is a huge variety of environments on earth, and in any environment, there are a wide variety of ecological niches which species can exploit. Darwin came up with his theory of natural selection from his experience in the Galapagos Islands, where finches (for example) evolved a huge variety of different species and filled different niches. Some species fed on nuts, and had evolved short, strong beaks. Some fed on nectar, and evolved long thin beaks. The reason these differing adaptions were successful was because the species evolved to fill different niches.

Human beings occupy a very different ecological niche than, say, whales. The evolutionary pressures on each species, therefore, are radically different. We are therefore not moving in the same evolutionary direction.


How do you say that when earlier you said:Thus whales have a few hairs left on their jaws, still there from when they were fur-bearing land dwellers.

Are they from the same niche or not? Why would we evolve from the water and whales evolve to the water? Why would we gain hair, and they lose it? You are contradicting your own theory (as evolution always does).
Why do we find HUGE gaps in the evolutionary tree if evolution is constant? Does evolution happen very fast, or very slow? The evolutionary tree for many species varies on this issue. Why? Does evolution ever stop in a species? What is your basis for your answers on any of these questions?

[rs0522]

You posted:
How fast did the strata form?

Many people believe that the it took thousands or millions of years to accumulate the sedimentary rock, but there
is increasing evidence that it only took months, days hours, or even minutes!

Could you cite your evidence? I expect that mud could be deposited in a matter of minutes, but the change from mud to sedimentary rock takes a good deal longer than months.

And:
Dinosaur and other fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary books. Animals
almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce
them to dust. Such conditions are highly unusual.
Fossils are indeed relatively rare. How this argues against current theories of fossil formation I don't understand. What is your evidence for saying that fossils don't form as we think they do?

And:
n almost all cases, the very existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly indicates
catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and preservation.
Again, I don't understand your point. You seem to be saying in one post that fossils are not formed in sedimentary rock, and in another that they are. Which is it?

And again:
Did you know that trees have been found fossilized across multiple layers of sediment, supposedly thousands of
years different in age? Can you explain this? Could you cite where this occurred, and what the circumstances were?

An interesting discussion so far. If I could ask, do you have any evidence to present in favor of creationism, or are you simply arguing against the modern theory of evolution and have no opinion as to how the differing species arose?

Regards,
rs0522

[OG-]

Yea I'm new to this board, but I'd just like to post my views on all of this. I believe in evolutionism, I think that it explains why life is today, but I am not going to say that I am completely right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, but I will argue about it. I think that god is just an easy way of explaining something you don't know. Ask someone who created god, and they'll say god was just always here. Ask someone why God takes the lives of good people, and they will simply say its all part of "gods plan." Thats too easy of an explaination for me, it lacks the depth an arguement needs.

My first point of arguement is a question for you Creationists out there. There are over 350 different religons on earth. Not all of those believe that one god created earth and everything in it, and surrounding it. Knowing that, how do you know that you are right, and that all those other religons are wrong? Thats a pretty stuborn thing to say. Shame on you. lol

Secondly, life on mars, did God create that also? If so why? Serves no purpose, at this point.

And when it comes to the bible, I fail to see any difference between the people/morals discussed in the bible, and old Greek thinkings. Greek gods and all of their tribulations. The bible, to me, is just a piece of literature. The bible tells of Jesus and all of his accomplishments etc. And something like the Odysee, tells of a mans dealings with the gods etc. They are both just pieces of literature. To further prove my point, as a junior in my highschool(and don't go dismissing anything I say just because I am in highschool) it is an english requirement that you read certain sections of the bible. Now is it just me or is there a thing called the seperation of church and state? Although that is making it sound like the school I go to teaches evolutionism, because it doesn't.

I could ramble on like this for a while, but without others talking, it will just turn into a rant, so I'll wait for others to replie.

[OG-]

Oh and I tend to spell alot of things wrong, sorry.

[OG-]

Heres something else I just thought of. Before the discussion talked about chance that the sun is such a distance away, etc. What exactly is going to happen once the sun dies? It is going to happen, and when it does earth will not exist anymore. Are humans going to go to some other planet and begin to prosper. If so that planet will have to be properly suited to support human life. How will this happen. I can tell you it will happen through evolution. If a planet is not already available with such support, through natural evolution, then one will have to be suited through man made assistance. IE terraforming. And terraforming is a prime example of the evolution a planet can go through to make it suitable for life.

[PacMan]

Ok well here is one f my theroys behide the existence or the non-existence of a "GOD." The ultimate powers of the mind are unknown and will not be know during any of our life times, but we do know that the mind is extreamly power full. To get to my point if if every one agrees that a chair will be named a chair and an apple an apple it is true that the chair is a chair, but the apple is not a chair, so what I propose is if a large enough group of people say that there is a god... "say" , say si too weak of a word bleive with out a doubt that there is a good just like that know/ beleive that a chair is a chair could they in theory colectivly create the being which they know to exist?

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by OG-
I think that god is just an easy way of explaining something you don't know. Ask someone who created god, and they'll say god was just always here. Ask someone why God takes the lives of good people, and they will simply say its all part of "gods plan." Thats too easy of an exp
laination for me, it lacks the depth an arguement needs.


Depends on your views - I could just as easily say it's easy to deny the existence of a God because that way you're not held accountable for sin.

As for God "always being here" - there's nothing weird about that. Does it make anymore sense to believe that the Big Bang just "happened" even though there was nothing? Something had to "always be here" - God or otherwise.

Oh, and FYI: God does not take people's lives: he simply creates us, the rest is done by us. He KNOWS what will happen.

And besides, if God exists, we have to assume that he probably can see the value in things and why they need to be done a heckuva lot more than we can.


Originally posted by OG-
Secondly, life on mars, did God create that also? If so why? Serves no purpose, at this point.


"At this point" is the key phrase - we have no idea what purpose it serves. Perhaps we will have a small group of people living on Mars as a result of finding life there.

Originally posted by OG-

To further prove my point, as a junior in my highschool(and don't go dismissing anything I say just because I am in highschool) it is an english requirement that you read certain sections of the bible. Now is it just me or is there a thing called the seperation of church and state? Although that is making it sound like the school I go to teaches evolutionism, because it doesn't.


That's not really a point - the Bible is literature: doesn't mean it is/isn't true, just means that you're a better person for having read it.

[OG-]

I partially agree with you, PacMan. I don't think that a "god" could be created physically, but mentally, sure. I'm thinking that the existence of a god would be in everyones mind. Whether or not it actually exists or not, ones mind is powerful enough to completely convince a person that it is real. Just as if someone were to take a halucinogenic, at that moment they are convinced what they see is real enough. But eventually the trip does wear off, and you have a moment of clarity. But I could be wrong in thinking that. Maybe the persons mind is powerful enough to convince itself completely , even past death, that there is a god. Or I could be completely wrong and there really is a god. That also leaves a question for religous people out there. What happens to someone who doesn't believe in god, yet leads a perfect life, when they die?

[TWTCommish]

Oh and as for the Sun: I don't know how long it's going to be til it kills us all (probably a long, long time), but my guess is that He will return before then, if it's anywhere near us at all.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by OG-
I partially agree with you, PacMan. I don't think that a "god" could be created physically, but mentally, sure. I'm thinking that the existence of a god would be in everyones mind. Whether or not it actually exists or not, ones mind is powerful enough to completely convince a person that it is real. Just as if someone were to take a halucinogenic, at that moment they are convinced what they see is real enough. But eventually the trip does wear off, and you have a moment of clarity. But I could be wrong in thinking that. Maybe the persons mind is powerful enough to convince itself completely , even past death, that there is a god. Or I could be completely wrong and there really is a god. That also leaves a question for religous people out there. What happens to someone who doesn't believe in god, yet leads a perfect life, when they die?

If that person does not believe in God, he or she did not really lead a perfect life. It is our nature to make an otherwise perfect life impossible anyway.

As for creating God - nothing creates God. If something out there can create God, it becomes God by default. God has always been here.

[PacMan]

who says the group of people who beleave in god are not god. God doesnt have to be a singular being. If every one refused to beleave in god he would just plain not exist.

I also so beleave greatly in multiverses, in the multiverses any thing is possible, so that means one of them must have a god, who says that we are not that universe...?

[PacMan]

I will not live in blind faith.

All it would take is god to say "hey I AM REAL" thats all I want and I would be come a christain monk, but untill then he hasn't given me reason to beleave in him.

I OWN MY SELF

[TWTCommish]

Uh, that doesn't make sense. If no one believed in God, he could still exist. Yes, in theory there could be some weird God that exists in our minds, but that's not the one I believe in.

[PacMan]

so you beleave in the one that talks to you and play football with you an your friends

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by PacMan
I will not live in blind faith.

All it would take is god to say "hey I AM REAL" thats all I want and I would be come a christain monk, but untill then he hasn't given me reason to beleave in him.

I OWN MY SELF


That's a very revealing comment on the kind of person you are! No one's saying God owns you - although personally I freely admit that he owns me, and I'm proud to be owned by him.

Blind faith? Look at a national park sometimes, look at the trees in autumn. Is it proof? No, but for me it's dang-near close. Without God there is no absolute right and wrong: only opinion. As in: rape isn't wrong, we just think it is. It's our opinion.

Without God, our lives have no real purpose. Do you really believe we're the result of millions of humanoid mutants that died out on other planets, and many on this one as well? REALLY?

[OG-]

I believe that everyone is "accountable for sin." Seeing as pretty much every sin, is against the law. And a person is punished for that sin by the law. And in most cases where a person is not punished, usually their own guilt for it is punishment enough. Knowing you did something wrong, and getting away with it can be punishment enough, I think.

I was told by another devoted religous person, a preacher actually, that God decides who lives, and who dies. He decideds what people do, and what people do not do. Looks like a little mix-up in your religion there...

The signs of life already present on Mars, should be sign off to show you evolution can take place. Those little worms found are the early stages of evolution.

You, Chris, said that god is a he. Do you know that for a fact? I've heard different things about that.

I also noticed you didn't comment on my point about the bible/greek mythology, or the 350 dif religons on earth...

Whats going to happen when he returns? Will he save everyone's life, and wisk them away to a safer planet. One that isn't destroying itself. Will he kill all sinners?? Will he just be here, not do anything.

Grant brigns up a good point. Alot of atheists have doubted god, simpley because the idea of someone governing their life does not please them.

Now if no one believe in God, he would still exist..yes. But would it matter? What would be the point?

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by PacMan
so you beleave in the one that talks to you and play football with you an your friends

Uh, what on earth are you talking about? I've had trouble understanding half of the things you've said.

[jamesglewisf]

Things are nice right now, but I want to remind everybody to keep it civil. No calling other ideas dumb or ridiculous or ignorant or whatever. It's alright to discuss evolution, but be nice.

Our civility is one of things that separates FrappyDoo! from other boards.

[OG-]

What Grant is trying to say, is since you do not believe in a god inside your mind, then you believe in the god that regularly converses with you, that walks with you, that talks to you, that interacts with you.

[PacMan]

...
yes I do beleave that religion is good because it set boundaries for people, but if you dont beleave in god that doesnt mean your goin to go around raping and kill people, and what if i did i could just go and confess my sins drink some wine choke on a waffer and poof they are gone

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by OG-
I believe that everyone is "accountable for sin." Seeing as pretty much every sin, is against the law. And a person is punished for that sin by the law. And in most cases where a person is not punished, usually their own guilt for it is punishment enough. Knowing you did something wrong, and getting away with it can be punishment enough, I think.

Perhaps. And no, MOST sins are not laws. Adultery is not, being a jerk is not against the law, thinking impure thoughts is not, swearing isn't really, being lazy isn't, being rude isn't.

Originally posted by OG-

I was told by another devoted religous person, a preacher actually, that God decides who lives, and who dies. He decideds what people do, and what people do not do. Looks like a little mix-up in your religion there...


Uh, not really. So-called "Christians" sometimes think abortion is okay, and some used to murder non-believers centuries ago. The religion is fine - all religions have abusers.

God decides in a sense - he built us knowing how we would react and what we would do, be we are making the decisions, IMO.


Originally posted by OG-

The signs of life already present on Mars, should be sign off to show you evolution can take place. Those little worms found are the early stages of evolution.


I believe in mild evolution - humans getting taller over time, etc. I do not believe an ameoba, no matter how long it is given, can turn into my brother, so to speak.

Originally posted by OG-

You, Chris, said that god is a he. Do you know that for a fact? I've heard different things about that.


Ever hear of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"? :) According to the Bible, Jesus is a male. Not a MAN, but a male. Obviously he's not a human.

Originally posted by OG-

I also noticed you didn't comment on my point about the bible/greek mythology, or the 350 dif religons on earth...


Nothing to say: your "religion" (doesn't have to believe in God to be a religion) isn't any more likely that mine from that standpoint - 1 out of 350. Although technially, a wacko can make one about a giant blue duck that created the Hover Dam, and that can technically be called a religion.

Originally posted by OG-

Whats going to happen when he returns? Will he save everyone's life, and wisk them away to a safer planet. One that isn't destroying itself. Will he kill all sinners?? Will he just be here, not do anything.


He will do something, the Bible makes that clear. It's not terribly specific on how it works. The basics are that the believers go to Heaven. Some people believe the non-believers will be left on Earth. I honestly do not know - and don't pretend to.

Originally posted by OG-

Grant brigns up a good point. Alot of atheists have doubted god, simpley because the idea of someone governing their life does not please them.


Yup - they also don't like having to "report" to someone and have more rules to follow.

Originally posted by OG-

Now if no one believe in God, he would still exist..yes. But would it matter? What would be the point?

There is no point - God would be God. I don't see your point at all.

[PacMan]

Ever hear of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"? :) According to the Bible, Jesus is a male. Not a MAN, but a male. Obviously he's not a human.

But he is human if says it in the bible

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by PacMan
...
yes I do beleave that religion is good because it set boundaries for people, but if you dont beleave in god that doesnt mean your goin to go around raping and kill people, and what if i did i could just go and confess my sins drink some wine choke on a waffer and poof they are gone

Please do not make light of Communion again. I take it very seriously. Luckily I am not easily offended, but most people would be, and your comments were, in my opinion, very much out of line. Please do not let it happen again.

Who said you would go around raping people? I didn't say that - where did you get that???

Poof they're gone? If you're an athiest, it's "poof - they never existed." And no, it's not that simple. If you pray for forgiveness thinking like that, then you're not really a Christian, and you're not really taking your sins seriously.

It's still easier to be an Atheist. That much ought to be obvious. I sin everyday and I have to ask for forgiveness. It makes me feel better, but I'm always reminded of my constant sin. If there's no God, why would I be shameful? t's not easy to follow God, but I do it anyway.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by PacMan
Ever hear of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"? :) According to the Bible, Jesus is a male. Not a MAN, but a male. Obviously he's not a human.

But he is human if says it in the bible

No, it says he was when he came to Earth. He's not human now. Close, but not quite the same. :)

[TWTCommish]

By the way, I'm sorry if I've gone a little nutso on you guys. I respect your opinions. Please do not mistake my words for condescension or superiority, or trying to make you feel bad at all. When this thread quiets down, assuming you have remained respectful to me and my views, I will feel the same way towards yours, with no hard feelings.

[OG-]

My point is, what would god do if such a situation occured. Would he punish every single person on earth because no one believed in him? Would he destroy the universe, and start all over again? Would he do nothing? Could he do anything?

Yea I'm gonna apologize for Grant. Although I do think what he said is true, to an extent. He did kinda bash your religon, and I'm sorry for that. This debate has kinda turned into a debate about the existence of god, or the lack there of.

If all of those things are sins, then I would not find joy in my life at all. I'm sure it would be possible, but I would not want to live a life like that. Judging by those sins, I could not do any of the things I like to do. I couldn't have a girlfriend, I couldn't think natural thoughts, I couldn't watch movies, play games, do anything without sining. To me thats basically saying, don't be human, do not follow your human nature.

But I do have to respect you for saying that you don't want to pretend to understand god.

But still, what about the bible, and greek mythology. It is the same. It tells of gods who governed the lives of everyone. And back in the day they believed that. Religous people are becoming a dying breed, and I feel that, just like the religons of the past, christianity will die out. Maybe not in my life time, but it will eventually, IMO.

Of course anyone can create a religon, which is Grants point. If you believe in it, will it be true? How do you know you are right. There is no way to prove the existence of god, but there is also no way to prove the non-existence of god, which is way its a dead end arguement, which I like fighting. Although nothing can prove the existence of god, IMO all of the "facts" and "ideas" known today, tend to lean towards the idea of no god.

Why is it so doubtful that an ape can not turn into a human? There is direct evidence of the evolution of man, from Neandrathal man, to Homo sapien sapien.

I'm getting tired of typing, I find it much harder to type out my thoughts, rather than say them out loud.

Oh and there are no hard feelings...

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by OG-
My point is, what would god do if such a situation occured. Would he punish every single person on earth because no one believed in him? Would he destroy the universe, and start all over again? Would he do nothing? Could he do anything?

Juding by the Bible, such a thing would not happen. This is like the "Can God make a stone so big he cannot lift it" question - it's hypothetical. Interesting perhaps, but doesn't indicate/not indicate existence of God.

Originally posted by OG-

Yea I'm gonna apologize for Grant. Although I do think what he said is true, to an extent. He did kinda bash your religon, and I'm sorry for that. This debate has kinda turned into a debate about the existence of god, or the lack there of.

No problem. As long as he doesn't make it a habit, I won't hold it against him. I'm not as easily offended as some people...but maybe I should be! :)

Originally posted by OG-

If all of those things are sins, then I would not find joy in my life at all. I'm sure it would be possible, but I would not want to live a life like that. Judging by those sins, I could not do any of the things I like to do. I couldn't have a girlfriend, I couldn't think natural thoughts, I couldn't watch movies, play games, do anything without sining. To me thats basically saying, don't be human, do not follow your human nature.


Don't be so sure - I find joy in my life. And yes, God is saying don't be human. Why? Because we ought to be perfect. Obviously we all agree the best thing to be would be perfect, and we all agree this is not possible. God knows this, and as such is not holding things against us.

All he asks is acknowledgement that we are sinful in nature: that by nature we have many flaws. We are then entered into his Kingdom. Talk about a sweetheart deal. :) j/k.

Originally posted by OG-

But still, what about the bible, and greek mythology. It is the same. It tells of gods who governed the lives of everyone. And back in the day they believed that. Religous people are becoming a dying breed, and I feel that, just like the religons of the past, christianity will die out. Maybe not in my life time, but it will eventually, IMO.


You may think it will die out someday, but they're not a dying breed at all right now. A very high number of people believe in some sort of God, and in the early 90's 30% of the World (roughly) believed in Jesus Christ specifically.

Originally posted by OG-

Of course anyone can create a religon, which is Grants point. If you believe in it, will it be true? How do you know you are right. There is no way to prove the existence of god, but there is also no way to prove the non-existence of god, which is way its a dead end arguement, which I like fighting. Although nothing can prove the existence of god, IMO all of the "facts" and "ideas" known today, tend to lean towards the idea of no god.


He's stating the obvious then. We all know that it's wide open (although some think it's obvious).

Originally posted by OG-

Why is it so doubtful that an ape can not turn into a human? There is direct evidence of the evolution of man, from Neandrathal man, to Homo sapien sapien.

I don't think so. Similar DNA means we walk in a similar fashoin. Our brains, however, are quite different. Therein lies the key. Technically a Monkey can go many of the same physical things I can do.

However, if you leave a ciziliation of monkeys to themselves for a thousand years, at the end of those thousand years they'll be more of them, but they'll all be eating bananas and eating bugs off of each other. They won't have invented things and improved their way of life like Man. Our brains set us apart.

[4everHis]

Some of this belongs in the "Bible Q&A" forum, not evolution, but anyway, I see some comments I would like to address...Originally posted by PacMan
Ever hear of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"? :) According to the Bible, Jesus is a male. Not a MAN, but a male. Obviously he's not a human. But he is human if says it in the bible A biblical understanding of God is necessary to properly answer this question. Is God human? Well, Yes and no. Yeah, I know, double-talk, right? Let me explain.

God the Father and God the Holy Ghost are Spirit, not human. God the Son (Jesus) is what some have called the infinite God-Man; meaning that He is infinitately God, and infinitely man. Now I know this is hard to understand how Jesus could be a man and God at the same time, but of course we are finite trying to understand the infinite, so there is no way for us to fully comprehend it (but when can apprehend it).

In John 1:1 the Bible says, "In the Beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God.

In this passage, the Word is referring to God the Son(Jesus). No, I am not reading into the text! The passage goes on to explain who it is speaking about in verse 14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". This is clearly Jesus Christ, the Son. What is interesting about this passage is when you break it down.

"En Arche" is the Greek for "In the beginning", or "at the beginning of time", or "before time began". These are the same words used in the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In John 1:1 we see that in the beginning (before time began - before God created time and space) WAS Jesus, Jesus WAS WITH God, and Jesus WAS God. In John 8:58 it says, "'I tell you the Truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM!'". Jesus was saying in this verse, using the verb "to be" that He always existed, even before Abraham was born (one of the key people that the Jewish Faith rested upon). These exact Words were used by Jehovah, God the Father, at the burning bush while speaking to Moses (another key person in the Jewish Faith). We read In Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, 'I AM who I AM. This is what you must say to the Israelites, `I AM has sent you`'". Now this sounds strange to us, but the Hebrew people understood this very clearly. This voice was saying that HE IS EVERYTHING, the ALPHA and the OMEGA (THE BEGINNING and THE END), the Creator of all that exists. The same words Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8:58.

So how can Jesus BE God? God is made up of three persons. Not 'people', but persons. God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Two are spirit, one is flesh. The term Father and Son, are used to express relationship, not supremacy. God the Father and Son are one, as Jesus said in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." Jesus vailed His Glory to an extent, to come as a man, live a perfect life (as we could not) to die in our place. This, to pay the penalty for our sins (the price is death).

And someone asked for PROOF in a prior post, for God to say, "I am GOD!" Here's your proof: Jesus rose again the third day to prove that He is God. No other 'religion' makes this claim. That their Savior died, and raised from the dead. This is what seperates Christianity from the "350" religions mentioned in a prior post.

If you really want to find proof as to whether there is a God, research the ressurection of Jesus. And I mean, really do the research, open your mind. You will find that the evidence of the ressurection is absolutely, beyond any doubt, going to stand without blemish. Scholars on legal evidences (even non-believers) have said that if the evidence was tried in a court of law, that there would be so much evidence for the ressurection (and none against), that there would be no way anyone could dispute the fact that Jesus did raise from the dead.

Many have gone before you in this reasearch (believers and non-believers). If you want to read some of this research, from the researcher's perspective, take a look at some of these books:

The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.
Lee Strobel was a seasoned, investigative reporter for the Chicago Times who also happened to be an Atheist. He decided that he wanted to research the biggest story of all time. The life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. He wanted to see if it was possible to disprove the Claims of Christianity once and for all. He looks into the Historical Evidence: Do we possess reliable documents concerning the life, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus? Scientific Evidence: Is there archaeological substantiation for the historical accounts about Jesus? Did Jesus perform miracles? Psychiatric Evidence: Did Jesus really claim to be God? What evidence is there that he fit God's profile? Fingerprint Evidence: What does prophecy have to say about Jesus? Other evidence: Jesus' death, the missing body, eyewitness accounts, and claims of personal encounters.The Case for Christ is a 'report' on his findings, with actual interviews documented in great detail. If you really have an open mind, go to Amazon.com and spend the ~$10 on this book.

Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell
and
New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell
These books provide scholarly, intelligent, well-grounded answers to questions about the Christian faith. McDowells conclusions are backed by solid evidence that will satisfy those who are willing to honestly consider the Bible's claims.

All of these books demand that the reader to come to a verdict of their own (in the court room of your mind). You must stand on one side of the fence or the other; there is no middle ground. If you still doubt after reading the evidence, then you've just become more informed for your argument. If you agree that Jesus Christ is who He said He is; God, the Messiah, the Creator, the Salvation of the world; then you will be eternally greatful for taking the time to read it.

The other issues mentioned in earlier posts, like "why does God take good people", etc., are easily explained, but I believe should be taken to the "Bible Q&A" pages. I will make some posts over there regarding some of the other issues mentioned (as soon as I have a little more time to give adequate answers).

I'll be back with more on the evolution vs. creation topic too.

[41mama]

Well, you certainly bring up a lot of interesting ideas, Pac Man. I finally got out _Darwin's Black Box_ by Michael Behe that I mentioned several eons ago in computer time. I'm not going to try to explain his point because my brain is pretty mushy these days, but he talks about how life depends on these "machines" of, say, six molecules to support life. Three molecules don't do half the job -- it takes all six. It just seems all this stuff coming together by chance is a little far-fetched to many of us.
I have some big arguments with some of the Creationist stuff I read too because it seems like they go out of their way to be silly, but evolution as the sole explanation of life on earth seems pretty silly too. In the publish-or-perish academic world, I'm sure most smart people follow the prevailing train of reasoning. Anyway. If you really want to know more about a God that created the universe, ask him and he'll reveal himself to you. christie
Also -- TWCommish -- if you read this post you should really consider doing more research on evolution before you go to college if you feel morally committed to the position that God created the world without evolution.

[TWTCommish]

Not at all - I'm not saying evolution does not take place - just not from a fish into a dog. "Microevolution" is the word I believe.

[41mama]

Good. Find out more. I'm not sure evolutionists would necessarily say they believe in "fish into dog," but you'll be hard pressed to find a college where evolution isn't presented very logically and attractively and if you're not going to believe it you really need to know why. christie

[OG-]

I'm going to try to stop talking about whether or not god is real, because I know I will some stuff, I personally won't regret, but I know it will hurt other people. But I will still talk about evolution.

(excuse spelling)
I bring myself back to the point of the evolution of man themself. The first humanoid, was Austrolopithicus, actually there was one before that called Austrolopithicus Africanus, but I will focus on Austrolopithicus. Austrolopithicus, which much like an ape, walked on all fours, and had a slopping forehead and protruding jaw...then turned into Homo-Erectus. Which was basically just a very hairy person who walked upright, unlike before, and had a slightly less protruding jaw and forehead. From Homo Erectus came Homo Habilus, which was less hairy, less protruding jaw, a more domed cranium, with a bigger brain cavity. Homo Habilus, with its more developed brain, was capable of using tools, and making tools. From Homo Habilus came Homo Sapien, the species right before humans. Up to now the bible could possibly explain why this occured, it started off as Adam and Eve and grew from there. Where did Cro-Magnon man come from? There is DIRECT FACTUAL EVIDENCE of Cro-Magnon man, where did they come from? And if you would like to know where they disappered to, Cro-Magnon man inter breed with Homo Sapien, yeilding Homo sapien sapien, or modern day man.
If there are bone aka archilogical evidence of Cro-Magnon man....where then do Adam and Eve fit in the archelogical evidence?

Also if Adam and eve are to be the representations of humans....Please give me a date in history when they appeared..and what followed..the Sumarians? Egyptians>? and where do they relate to the dinosaur bones... ?

I can tell you why Adam and Eve do not fit into the equation, and its rather simple. During the time when Adam and Eve were thought of, when the bible was created, Dinosaurs, Homo Habilus, Neandrathal man, Cro-Magnon man, Homo Erectus, and all the others were not known at the time. There was no way that information could have been known, which is why Creationism offers no explaination for it.

[TWTCommish]

I personally do not have an explanation, but in addition, I have not done research on all these different humanoids, so I'm not ready to accept them as fact.

However, do not assume that Creationism is without an answer. It may not, but Evolution does not have answers to everything either. By the ODDS ALONE half the things these scientists claim will be proved to be incorrect later.

Besides, I would not be at all surprised to see Jeff come up with an explanation. I can't speak for him, but I don't think it's correct to say there is now explanation for Creationism.

[4everHis]

Originally posted by 41mama
I'm not sure evolutionists would necessarily say they believe in "fish into dog," ...You are right about that, but they do try to say (as you may have seen earlier in this discussion), that a fish can turn into a person. As a matter of fact, they would say you were a fish in the womb, before you finally evolved into a human during the 40 weeks in your mother's belly!

When I find my notes on the subject, I will show where this has been proven to be utterly false. Thought it has been proven a lie (as much of the evolutionist's claims) it is still taught as fact in most schools today; sad as it is.

[41mama]

Um, the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (sp?) argument is way, way passe. Let's argue about what the best minds are saying instead of refuting silliness. These arguments are very complex and that's why I want TWT Commish to do more research before he goes to college. Creationist silliness, for instance, is exemplified by something I found in a Creationist book my ds got, saying the world was created for the pleasure and use of man. Huh? I believe the world was created for God's pleasure, not man's. Christie

[OG-]

I have never heard that theory at all, and even though I am an evolutionist, it sounds like *** to me.

[TWTCommish]

It might have been exaggerated - some people point to the fact that the baby in the womb appears to have something resembling a fishlike tail early on. And yeah, I think it's a bit nutty.

You're right, though, 41mama - I do need to do more homework. Unfortunatly, I have a lot of other work to deal with right now. I will always remain open-minded towards Evolutionism and Atheism, however, despite leaning heavily on logic for most decisions/rationale in my life, there are some very emotionally-oriented things that tell me a God exists that I do not think I could convince myself to refute.

[OG-]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I will always remain open-minded towards Evolutionism and Atheism, however, despite leaning heavily on logic for most decisions/rationale in my life


Your making it sound like Evolutionism is the more logical choice between the two. Do you think this? I understand that if you do, that doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in it.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
there are some very emotionally-oriented things that tell me a God exists that I do not think I could convince myself to refute.


I use to feel the same way, when I was 7. Sorry if that sounds rude or what not, but the reason I use to believe Creationism and believing in God, was because I went to church, and they told me to. Then later on, I got mature, and smarter, and learned to think about it on my own. And of course realized it made no sense.

[TWTCommish]

Yup, I was raised that was as well. However I have not changed my mind...and yes, I have remained open to other viewpoints. I've read Anti-Christian books for goodness' sake. :)

No, I do not believe Evolutionism is the more logical - if I did, I'd believe in it. My two statements were not meant to be taken TOGETHER. IE: despite depending on logic to make many decisions, some of my core beliefs towards Christianity have to do with emotions of mine - not related to the sentence beforehand. My apologies - they should have been in seperate paragrapsh. :)

[OG-]

ok

[Elohimcreated]

Just wondering what do you guys believe about evolution, do you even believe in it? I remember arguing with a kid about it for hours.

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IN TIME MAN WILL LOOK BACK AT THIS THEORY AND SEE THE EFFECTS IT HAD ON OUR CIVILAZATION AND VIEW THIS AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST DECEITS IN HISTORY.

[TomFoolery]

HOLY COW, BATMAN! DO YOU JUST SEARCH THE WEB LOOKING FOR PLACES WHERE YOU CAN SHOUT YOUR OPINIONS? ALL CAPS IS RUDE, DUDE!

ANd why did you dredge up a 5 year old thread to do it in?

[Noseypoo]

You tell him {thumbsu}

[Hannamoren]

{coffeepc}

[Noseypoo]

Thought you don't drink coffee {wink}

[Hannamoren]

It's tea.....

[Noseypoo]

{nudge}