Evolution

[Timber Loftis]

Good post, Willow.

Personally, I find the evolution of mitochondria from bacteria to be much more beautiful than Genesis. No kidding. The development of species on this planet is a 4.5-billion-year work of art beginning with primordial ooze and beautifully developing into the species that exist today. It is an ongoing, ever-changing symphony composed by the universe and by nature. It is so much bigger than any human or the existence of humans can ever be that it makes us all insignificant specks of dust.

It tugs my heartstrings so much more than the notion that some human-type persona got creative one day, or seven, and plopped down a world.

Sorry, just tying my religion/evolution views to one fact I noticed recently: that I think everything else on the planet is much more beautiful than man or anything he creates.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by MagiK: Hi Cerek 1st ....wha tis TTBOMK?

TTBOMK - To The Best Of My Knowledge. My apologies, I usually tried to avoid abbreviations (except for the very common ones), but I'm at work and was in a big hurry.

Originally posted by Magik: 2nd. In my therory (my very own ) I see that God evolved our primitive pre-humans using the laws he set for the universe, at some point these pre-men became self aware and this set of initial humans were our Adam and Eve analogs...of course this pretty much throws genesis out the window as anything but parable...or....dang, can't remember the word I want.... *sigh* make it a non-literal story

I believe the word you're searching for is Fable. That's a very plausible explanation - although I personally disagree with it. I've mentioned this before, but I do believe the Bible to be the literal Word of God. I accept there could be minor inaccuracies (maybe Goliath was only 7ft tall instead of 9ft), but these do not take away from the significance and accuracy of the overrall message (Goliath towered above everybody else, and David faced him with nothing more than a sling and faith in God).

The reason I accept the Bible as the literal Word of God is two-fold. The most important reason (of course) is the personal relationship I have with God. My understanding of Him and His Will is deepened each time I read it. The second (less altruistic) reason is based on the "first line of defense" thrown out by atheists stating that "If PART of the Bible is not true, then NONE of it is true." I accept that argument to a degree, only I apply it in reverse. I have "tested" the parts of the Bible that I can. Passages relating to faithful prayer, worship, and trust in God have ALL proven themselves to be true to me. Therefore, if THOSE parts are true...then all the other parts must also be true.

Having said that, I will be the first to admit that I have not yet been able to figure out where "primitive man" fits into the Bible's timeline. Does that make me "question" the accuracy of the Bible. No, it doesn't. I also didn't understand how getting on my knees and asking God to forgive my sins and grant me Salvation could possibly work - but it did.

No...my "primitive man/Bible" conflict is based upon my own lack of understanding. I feel certain there is a suitable explanation...I just haven't discovered it yet. That is not "naive" in the least. In fact - as Yorick pointed out - it is no different than those who believe in evolution and the existence of a "Missing Link". They are certain the Missing Link exists even though it has yet to be found.

[Chamberlain]

I read throught the first 2 pages of this thread and I've got one question.
Why is all this evidence being presented by evolutionists and being denied by creationists...what hard evidence has any creationist presented?

Sorry if this is a bit off topic and travels towards the non-existance of god...I thought I'd throw this in.
Turning away from biology and towards physics...I was presented with this question by my teacher once...she was trying to convince me of the existance of god.
Let me see if I can remeber what she said.(Twas approxiamately one year ago)
She asked me something to the effect of "Where is everthing is the universe created from?"
So naturally I replied "From matter and energy of course"
She states that according to the laws of physics...matter and energy can not be created. Fair enough. I do love my physics.
So she asks me where this matter and energy comes from.
I flat out say I don't know.
So she goes into this whole spiel about how it can't be created according to the laws of physics.
So I'm like OK, I get your damn point where are you going with this?
She says since it can't be created, it had to be put there somehow.
Then she goes into a whole spiel how god had to put it there because it wouldn't be there any other way...
At this point I was very angered.
She just gave me a whole lecture on how matter and energy can not be created but how god can somehow perform this feat.
I'm sorry but who the hell created god.
Why the hell is he the exception to the rule.
I really have no idea where all the materials present in the universe came from but I truly know it did not come from a higher authority...If you notice nothing in this world is "special" there are no real "exceptions", god does not exist.
Makes no sense to me and this ties in with creationism...there is no god and therefore some other theory...maybe evolution(that's what I think), maybe something else no one has thought of is the reason why we're here.

Man that's alot of rambling probably doesn't make any sense...I'll edit it later.

Also, Yorick said something to the effect of within 4000 years there has been no significant change in humans.
IIRC, the neanderthals we're humans correct? And there bone structure I would say is quite different from ours today. Sloping forheads...larger pelvises etc.

Man I have much more to say and I just don't feel like typing more so i'll wait for someone to comeback to me.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Chamberlain, you touch upon the most specific reason I don't believe in God. I see the notion that God created the universe as answering one unknown with another. I'm fine with the fact that the universe itself is eternal. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, it must be eternal in my opinion.

As for Cerek's problem regarding Neander-man and other fossils, you shouldn't let it wrap you into the search for any answers, Cerek. If creationists are right, then the whole carbon-dating system thing is wrong anyway - which we know it isn't. For the creationist, the solution to this delimma is simple. The 6000-yr (estimate) age of the planet according to the Bible does not mean that the rocks in the Earth aren't 4.5 billion years old. It means that when God made the Earth he created 4.5 billion-year-old rocks to put on it. Likewise, he created fossils and fossil records. (On a side note, isn't this the only way to account for the dinosaur fossils?)

By this logic, I'll note, it is quite possible that God simply created the world YESTERDAY, and gave us all our texts, brains, memory, and knowledge YESTERDAY, making us think we've been around longer than that. Just a thought, though.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Melusine: I misremembered. The two fears that you are born with are fear of loud noises and fear of heights. Those are NOT taught to children Hugh. We are BORN with them, and may learn at a later time to overcome them. But they ARE instinctive - babies will initially have them regardless of what they experience or are taught.

Well sort of. Fear of heights only arises from learning to locomote (crawl, move off own accord). You put a baby who can't move by themselves on a surface that looks like it is invisible (eg glass), they don't care. You put a baby who has learnt to locomote on the same surface, and they are afraid and think they will fall through. Their locomotion experience, falls, near-falls, looking down off beds and so on, has taught them about depth and distance and why heights are scary.

One interesting thing about instincts, is that the more babies a species has (at once), the more instincts they are born with. It's not like humans are born with no instincts, and every other species has the same amount of instincts. The less babies a mother has, the more she can teach her children. So higher order mammals are born with a lot less instincts than say, rodents, and they have even less than fish. The reason fish and so on have so many babies is that because they don't teach them stuff, lots die if the evnironmental conditions are completely suited to the instincts they're born with. Higher-order creatures like dogs and cats, and moreso apes and humans are able to teach their babies most of what they need to survive, and so can teach them much better to survive in their specific environment rather than more general instincts.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Moiraine: What is it that seems to be so emotionally disturbing to humankind in sharing ancestors with apes ?

I just thought I'd try to answer that question. [img]smile.gif[/img] As I said before, I don't find anything disturbing about sharing ancestors with apes. Maybe some people find it emotionally disturbing because they want to believe humans aren't 'animals', if you understand what I mean. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[cormack]

Lol! Spelca (I don't beleive we have even lived up to animal standards at times in the world myself)

Great thread and very good reading.
Things do change and evolve. How many layers of skin do humans shed..a layer every two weeks? the body is a wonderful thing.(your body is a wonderland )

The carbon dating system was proven wrong many times but we do have artifacts my friends Land markers and history books about where "we" came from and how far we have come. The people have continually gotten bigger, stronger, smarter, you name it- over the last couple decades knowledge and information abounds.
I just hope one could never count out evolving from something lower, an ape would be good. Funny to

[Timber Loftis]

Okay, without derailing this thread, can someone please point me to a cite where it discusses how carbon dating was disproved. I'd think such a landmark scientific event would get a bit of press coverage.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Sever: Yes i do create, and yes i do cherish. But my point was about the individual. I do not cherish each and every minute spec of colour on the canvas. I do not cherish each letter on the page. I cherish the whole. Suppose each and every binary digit in a program had a conscience and mind of it's own. What would they think of their origins. Imagine what wild speculations they could compose without being able to see the 'whole'.Would you or i, as the hypothetical programmer, even care about the thoughts of the insignificant individual?

Speaking from very outdated experience, you most definitely WOULD care about each "insignificant individual" - EXPECIALLY if the the Compiler kicked back a "Syntax Error". [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Just try to inject a little humor.

[cormack]

Well, I don't have a website to share with that statement Timber- no offense. Your a good dude!

But I would be a little weary of just that basis itself. If escavation records, matched with historical writings coincided, and proof of this geological reason was not presented how could we beleive it as fact