Evolution

[Legolas]

Originally posted by Yorick: Legolas did you not read Magik's post before yours? He is a person with Christian beliefs who is also a believer of evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive ideas. As a Christian I can be an evolutionist, or a creationist. Neither theory is necessary to my theology. However, can an athiest be either creationistic or evolutionistic? If there is necessity of belief and mutual exclusivity, it would seem to be on the side of atheism, not religion.

No, I did not read Magik's post when I hit the Add Reply button. There was no post of Magik's when I began composing mine
Also, you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Firstly, I did not say it was impossible. Secondly, I was not talking about Christians in general.
Rather, I was referring to those who are 'emotionately disturbed' by the notion of evolution.
And although I'm sure there are still some with us today, I thought the context of the words was taking me more to Darwin's days than todays world (BTW, I wasn't even talking about christians specifically, just religion in general) where the words of, for example, the bible, were taken much more literally than they are by many 'modern christians', if I may use that description

And yes, atheists will undoubtedly have more diffculty being creationistic [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Heirophant, I'm aware of all that. But none recorded in 4000 years?? It's speculation on fossils that such a concept even exists, not factual experienced and quantifiable evidence. Apparently to some, the foundation of 'science'.

Regarding your gene idea of the olive skinned man/short fat guy, this is not something I'm disputing. These are changes WITHIN A SPECIES, not creations of a new species. The genetic abberances and mutations don't reproduce.

Look at the mule.

Look at the gene lock that will not allow offspring from a cat and dog mating.

(Slightly offtopic) While where at it let's look at the code. The program. The blueprint and design for how we end up.

A code usually has a tranmitter and receiver. A design or plan usually has a designer or architect behind it. A programmer creates a program yes?

Enter God. Architect, artist, designer, programmer, implimenter, enabler, sustainer.

[ 02-24-2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Masklinn]

By Yorick :

But none recorded in 4000??

Yorick, you have no idea...4000 years is NOTHING in the evolution process, really really nothing.

The only noticeable evolution is maybe our size, we're taller than our ancestors. Oh also our feet size has increased...I think [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT :

It's speculation on fossils

Talking about that, what would be your own speculation on fossils ? If we found them, they have existed right ? What were they, why did they disapear, and most important : why can't we find fossils of currently existing creatures from the same period ?

[ 02-24-2003, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Yorick]

The thinking behind the text I quoted is that the need creates a change in the species, not that it's a purely random development As you and Heirophant are putting forth Maskilnn.

[Sever]

Not much more i can add to that, Heirophant. Except maybe Amen.

*Ducks for cover*

Seriously though, in light of all that we've learned, it seems to me that an incredible amount of naivete is required to believe the Creation theory over Natural Selection. Sorry.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Yorick: Heirophant, I'm aware of all that. But none recorded in 4000 years?? It's speculation on fossils that such a concept even exists, not factual experienced and quantifiable evidence. Apparently to some, the foundation of 'science'.

well, faith is the foundation of fact, which is the foundation of science. I never said it's undisputed truth. Just suggesting that it does make sense is all.

Regarding your gene idea of the olive skinned man/short fat guy, this is not something I'm disputing. These are changes WITHIN A SPECIES, not creations of a new species. The genetic abberances and mutations don't reproduce. Look at the mule.

Indeed, behold! It is a beautiful mule! But yes, what you are inferring is right, and so that particular genetic design is doomed to extinction. In 5 million years I predict that there shall be no mules! [img]smile.gif[/img]

(Slightly offtopic) While where at it let's look at the code. The program. The blueprint and design for how we end up. A code usually has a tranmitter and receiver. A design or plan usually has a designer or architect behind it. A programmer creates a program yes? Enter God. Architect, artist, designer, programmer, implimenter, enabler, sustainer.

Now, where this is where things get hazy. Life itself may not have always been cellular. Organization into cells could very well have been in itself the result of billions of years of organic amino acids bonding in such a way as to create a protective membrane (billions of years ago in the primordial soup/sandwhich, which was basically just one great big, gigantic ocean-sized womb). We're talking primitive stuff here. Not even enough amino acid bonds to create a single protein molecule. Indeed the first 'life' on Earth was probably just a few amino acids somehow bonded together by physical forces (maybe by the God). Incredibly fragile, but reasonable comfortable within the safety of the primordial womb (no life yet: no predators yet). The design may have been birthed from pure luck and chaos, or it may have been directed by a creative will. Who knows?

Ultimately, you and I are here now, debating this via electronic signals. What are the odds of this coming to pass? What are the ODDS?

Big

[ 02-24-2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Sever]

Originally posted by Yorick: A code usually has a tranmitter and receiver. A design or plan usually has a designer or architect behind it. A programmer creates a program yes? Enter God. Architect, artist, designer, programmer, implimenter, enabler, sustainer.

Then God is something totally beyond any human comprehension, and so are we, as individuals, totally beyond any thought or care of that something.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Masklinn: By Yorick : Quote: But none recorded in 4000??

Yorick, you have no idea...4000 years is NOTHING in the evolution process, really really nothing.

The only noticeable evolution is maybe our size, we're taller than our ancestors. Oh also our feet size has increased...I think [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]O.k. and then we get into a debate about how old the earth is. THen we present information like the amount of "dust" that falls on the moon (and earth) from space each year. Same amount each year. There's no wind on the moon so none of it has blown away, yet the amount is not that which you would get from a moon as old as is needed by what you're saying.

Even if it were so, if not one change occurs in any species in 4000 years, I don't believe the math adds up as to the time frame evolution theory puts forth.

In any case Evolution theory is reliant on an old earth. With creationism, the earth can be young or old. It's doesn't matter. Another example of the difficulty an atheistic evolutionist faces when gathering and formulating evidence and theories. It all must fit into a preexisting framework rather than be looked at with an open mind.

Just today, I was reading an article about "The first human to leave Africa".

In terms of evidence, all that exists is a skull in the earth. So much is assumed from so little. We don't know how the sull got there. Whether the person was alive when the bones got there and if he had died, how long he was dead before he was moved their.

However unlikely or likely a scenario surrounding bones may be, all we actually have in our hands are bones. Not firsthand proof. Howver the evolutionist, when confronted with new evidence, will attmempt to place their find into the pre-existing theories and it's framework.

Bias and preheld agenda.

So. The atheist needs evolution theory which needs an ancient earth.

A theistic creationist could accept a world that began two seconds ago.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sever: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: A code usually has a tranmitter and receiver. A design or plan usually has a designer or architect behind it. A programmer creates a program yes? Enter God. Architect, artist, designer, programmer, implimenter, enabler, sustainer.

Then God is something totally beyond any human comprehension, and so are we, as individuals, totally beyond any thought or care of that something.[/QUOTE]Have you ever painted or created something? Poured effort into a creative expression of your inner being? If it is truly a reflection of your inner self, how much do you cherish it?

[Moiraine]

Wow interesting posts ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

I asked the question of emotional reluctance because from what I have read about the way people - and scientists - have handled the fossils discoveries and tried to make hypothesis throughout the last three centuries seem to show an amazing tendancy to unconsciously center the discoveries and the deduced theories about simian and human fossils around our human line.

When I read that it is only very recently that scientists started to realize that maybe all the human and proto-human fossils they had found did NOT all belong to the same line - that human evolution seems to be indeed a bush with many branches, only one of them leading to us homo sapiens, all the others being extinct now - I realized that although I honestly believe I have no conscious feeling of belonging to a 'special' line, I hadn't considered the possibility of it ! So I thought that I had probably some unconscious cultural blind spots deeply hidden in my own mind. [img]smile.gif[/img] Am I making sense ?

Yorick, about your post about animals suddenly growing stuff - evolution doesn't work that way. I have a norwegian cat - these are supposedly the descendants of the cats that the vikings brought with us on their ships to kill the rats, and have been left alone in cold forests for 1000 years. Now they have evolved a heavy fur. But it doesn't mean that one morning one of those cats suddenly grew fur ! It means that most of these cats died except the ones with the biggest individual fur - and those bred and transmitted the gene, who grew stronger with time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The way scientists conceive human evolution has drastically changed during the last decade. Before, they didn't think of a bush with many branches - so when they found a fossil, they tried to situated it on the supposedly linear human line. So for example, they assumed that bipedia and a big skull were both derived characteristics - and they got perplexed when they found a fossil with both a very modern bipedia and a small skull. Especially since they thought both characteristics were related. Like Tumaï, discovered a year ago, 7 million years old.

Now they think that bipedia exists as potential in both human and ape original gene pool, and that it developped or not depending on environment (as : the individuals that walked upright the most were those who were able to better escape predators in savana areas (fewer trees to hide in), so more and more surviving individuals bred and passed the genes on).