Evolution - Let's discuss!! (Jesus, moral, Earth, Kingdom)

[mams1559]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Hey Nikk, who were the Neanderthals? Where do they fit into the Biblical account? They existed, they are not a figment of anyone's imagination.

Why are there pygmies in Africa? From what animal did domestic dogs come from? You are completely blowing smoke.

The Neanderthals were decendants of Adam and Eve, just as the pygmies are in Africa. They are variations of human genetics due to isolation and limited gene pool. Just as today humans range in height from ~ 4 ft to ~ 7 ft or more.

Domestic dogs came from an original canine kind. Even secular scientists agree dogs have a common ancestor. Domestic dogs were bred from wild canines. The various breeds of dogs we have today is due to selective breeding by humans. They're all still dogs.

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by mams1559

The Neanderthals were decendants of Adam and Eve, just as the pygmies are in Africa. They are variations of human genetics due to isolation and limited gene pool. Just as today humans range in height from ~ 4 ft to ~ 7 ft or more.

Domestic dogs came from an original canine kind. Even secular scientists agree dogs have a common ancestor. Domestic dogs were bred from wild canines. The various breeds of dogs we have today is due to selective breeding by humans. They're all still dogs.

There was no Adam and Eve, except in the mind of a slave-holding, pig-avoiding, idol-despising bedouin in Palestine, and even THAT (having the Adam and Eve story in mind) was the case because that bedouin had heard about it from persons descended from or influenced by the Sumerian civilization first. Period. Moderator cut: insults How do you distinguish the truth claims of these alternative mythologies? Moderator cut: personal attacks

How do you like that figure of 800,000 years in my previous post? That doesn't fit in with the Biblical account either.

Interesting that you admit "variations of human genetics" but can't follow the rest of the reasoning of evolution. The camel's nose is under the tent, you see. Your reasoning has arbitrary limitations.

American Protestant Evangelical Christianity helps upwardly mobile suburban Americans feel good about themselves and their lives, so they mistakenly think that they can get their science from the Bible. How sad a commentary on the American system of public education. Science isn't a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of facts and evidence.

[actonbell]

GCSTroop:

You’re the first to recognize me as the new kid on the block. I have posted in several other forums only because something had struck me a certain way and I couldn’t resist but to leave a comment.

A bit about my personality: We are our life’s experiences and this is an experience. Nothing more, nothing less. I will be nice, until some one is not nice. Then I just cease to talk to them any more. There’s no excuse for rude behavior in a person.

In college I took philosophy and humanities, as I so loved the course. I found that I just thought that way and understood unabridged in concept.

GCS what are you looking at right now? A monitor right? How do you know it is a monitor? You may answer that, because some one invented, created, defined what we now call a monitor. Why not call it a window. You can certainly see through it into something else.

In philosophy, your monitor can be anything you want it to be. Does it really matter that some one else may refer to it as a window? How important is that?

Religion is what ever you want it to be. Atheist can be a religion.

Faith, people act on faith every day and they don’t even realize they are doing it. When a person goes to sit, how do they know beyond a shadow of a doubt the structure in which they are about to sit on will support them? Most just sit and don’t even think about it. There is a small minor chance the structure won’t hold them but they just sit, just the same.

On 911 people went to work that day as they had done many times and had returned home from work. Who knew what would happen and it was by some form or fashion faith the brought them there. Could/can science predict the turn of events? No. Could religion, no. Wow, same playing field, yet different in many ways.

The theory of evolution is just that a theory. If is wasn’t a theory they would be calling it a fact by definition, much like the monitor you are now looking at, is called a monitor.

There is a gravitational pull on the earth moving the earth at a slow rate with each rotation around the sun, towards the sun. (Got to love Mr. Lively 7th grade class, it’s elementary and if you’re going to dispute this, you better link me up)

Within the Bible we have flood talked about that was to have happened. The fossils were covered in water long before they surfaced for us to discover them. I find this odd that the dots do not connect with this event. Science fact we were, the earth was engulfed in water.

I also find it odd that the Bible predicts the end of mankind and all that we know it is will happen in the form of fire. And yet know one will connect the dots to the earth’s gravitational pull towards the sun to be the result of the end of mankind. The Bible tells about it, not a science book?

You talked about us coming from monkeys. I predict we will, as digression has become a knowing event with all the more people reporting their inability to think and are turning to Ginseng and such to help with that and irrational behaviors all to seen much more prevalent these days. We will digress and evolve to where one day people, human animals, will peal the banana eat the pealing and throw the fruit away.

Even though the Bible is the only book recorded that has survived since the beginning of time, it is common sensuous for us to think, ignorant people wrote it, didn’t know what they were writing, it is spiritual so there fore it must not be science in evolution of the times and the changes of events to our form.

Think Trooper and I challenge Ken Miller think, outside the box. The world is full of possibilities and the great thing is, you don’t have to believe in any of them in order to exist.

I don’t care if we did think the world to be flat. We’re ignorant. Some one smart, wrote that Bible, some one far more intelligent than we could ever dream of becoming in our world today and it survived. Look at it as if you have just discovered a fossil.

Ecclesiastics darling, check it out. It’s in the Old Testament and last I checked the Bible has been index for our benefit. Try and see what they may have seen. The King James version of course as gossip is as gossip does gets more outrageous over time.

[ParkTwain]

"Even though the Bible is the only book recorded that has survived since the beginning of time, ..."


Certainly not true. Check out the dried clay tables with cuneiform writing found all over Mesopotamia.

[mams1559]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

There was no Adam and Eve, except in the mind of a slave-holding, pig-avoiding, idol-despising bedouin in Palestine, and even THAT (having the Adam and Eve story in mind) was the case because that bedouin had heard about it from persons descended from or influenced by the Sumerian civilization first. Period. If you believe that story, why don't you believe in Superman and the planet Krypton? How do you distinguish the truth claims of these alternative mythologies? You must not have a very vivid imagination.

How do you like that figure of 800,000 years in my previous post? That doesn't fit in with the Biblical account either.

Interesting that you admit "variations of human genetics" but can't follow the rest of the reasoning of evolution. The camel's nose is under the tent, you see. Your reasoning has arbitrary limitations.

American Protestant Evangelical Christianity helps upwardly mobile suburban Americans feel good about themselves and their lives, so they mistakenly think that they can get their science from the Bible. How sad a commentary on the American system of public education. Science isn't a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of facts and evidence.

Well, golly-gee, Mr. ParkTwain, tell me how you really feel. And don't hide behind little smiley faces....

[ian6479]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

There was no Adam and Eve, except in the mind of a slave-holding, pig-avoiding, idol-despising bedouin in Palestine, and even THAT (having the Adam and Eve story in mind) was the case because that bedouin had heard about it from persons descended from or influenced by the Sumerian civilization first. Period. Moderator cut: insults How do you distinguish the truth claims of these alternative mythologies? Moderator cut: personal attacks

How do you like that figure of 800,000 years in my previous post? That doesn't fit in with the Biblical account either.

Interesting that you admit "variations of human genetics" but can't follow the rest of the reasoning of evolution. The camel's nose is under the tent, you see. Your reasoning has arbitrary limitations.

American Protestant Evangelical Christianity helps upwardly mobile suburban Americans feel good about themselves and their lives, so they mistakenly think that they can get their science from the Bible. How sad a commentary on the American system of public education. Science isn't a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of facts and evidence.

As right as you are, and as articulately you make your points, you are unfortunately falling on deaf ears. Whilst Evolution is a fact of life for many of us, there are many people who will never accept it. They will however accept stories of 3 wise men, adam and eve, and great floods.

I read in the economist today that less than half of Americans can actually state what the first book of the bible is, less than half know who delivered the sermon on the mount, and less than a third can state more than half of the ten commandents... and yet, a book that is so misunderstood is so often the basis for people's rejection of fundamental scientific principles. Truly frightening.

[ParkTwain]

The degree of ignorance of historical and religious matters that is abroad in America is absolutely frightening to a thinking person.

1 Corinthians 13.11
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

[cg81]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

The degree of ignorance of historical and religious matters that is abroad in America is absolutely frightening to a thinking person.

I agree, it is.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by actonbell

GCS what are you looking at right now? A monitor right? How do you know it is a monitor? You may answer that, because some one invented, created, defined what we now call a monitor. Why not call it a window. You can certainly see through it into something else.

Yeah I understand all of this, and for purposes of evolution we define a species as fitting a certain characteristic. We have phylogenetic trees, taxonomies, kingdoms, etc... to help us differentiate between a species. Nature has no 'lines', so to speak, it doesn't differentiate between a gorilla and a petunia. They're different because of their chemical makeup, just as a window is different than a monitor. However, we choose to label things so that we're more organized in what we do, that goes for differentiating a monitor from a window to organizing filing systems, to having dictionaries. For us, without some sort of clarification on what is what, we would live in a jumbled hodgepodge world.

Originally Posted by actonbell

In philosophy, your monitor can be anything you want it to be. Does it really matter that some one else may refer to it as a window? How important is that?

Although I see the point in some philosophy, I'm not a very big fan of it because it always seems to be left open to interpretation. I'm a person that likes to deal with fact. Philosophy does not really give me that warm gushy feeling, it usually ends up irritating me. Philosophers remind me of Yoda. Just because they talk funny and vaguely, people end up respecting their point of view. I'm not bashing all of philosophy, I just think that people put a little too much creedance into it. It's called philosophy for a reason, not factosophy.

Originally Posted by actonbell

Religion is what ever you want it to be. Atheist can be a religion.

I don't know why people feel atheism can be a religion. As I've said before "Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Originally Posted by actonbell

Faith, people act on faith every day and they don’t even realize they are doing it. When a person goes to sit, how do they know beyond a shadow of a doubt the structure in which they are about to sit on will support them? Most just sit and don’t even think about it. There is a small minor chance the structure won’t hold them but they just sit, just the same.

Look, I'm well aware that there is no such thing as absolute truth. You can't 100% know that before you drop a ball it's going to hit the floor. However, through scientific experiment, studying the laws of gravity, and understanding how dropping a ball works, we can make a very good assumption that by releasing the ball it's going to fall to the ground. In fact, we could probably be 99.9% certain it's going to hit the ground. Yes, I understand there are no absolute truths, but so as not to go insane or obsessive compulsive, we're willing to eliminate that .1 percent chance and drop that ball.

Originally Posted by actonbell

On 911 people went to work that day as they had done many times and had returned home from work. Who knew what would happen and it was by some form or fashion faith the brought them there. Could/can science predict the turn of events? No. Could religion, no. Wow, same playing field, yet different in many ways.

Science has never claimed to predict the future in the terms you are speaking of. It will make predictions such as when the sun will burn up, what will happen when all the energy in the universe burns out, what would happen if a meteor struck the earth, things of that nature. However, it is only religion that claims to foretell the future in the manner in which you are speaking. I'm honestly not impressed with the Bible. You know what would impress me with the Bible, especially since its' the 'word of God'?? I would be impressed if the Bible had mentioned something about DNA or genetics. Yet, it doesn't come anywhere close. Now, that would have been something truly marvelous. Imagine if the bible had said "One day there will be a discovery of a double helical strand that carries the code for all of humans, animals, plants, etc.." That would have been impressive.

Jesus wasn't a scientist.

Originally Posted by actonbell

The theory of evolution is just that a theory. If is wasn’t a theory they would be calling it a fact by definition, much like the monitor you are now looking at, is called a monitor.

It is a theory in much the same way the theory of gravity is a theory. Or the Theory of Relativity is a theory. For all intensive purposes, it is a fact, I must admit though, I really wish scientists would stop calling things 'theories'. It is somewhat misleading.

Originally Posted by actonbell

There is a gravitational pull on the earth moving the earth at a slow rate with each rotation around the sun, towards the sun. (Got to love Mr. Lively 7th grade class, it’s elementary and if you’re going to dispute this, you better link me up)

I never said anything different. I was just throwing out some extra information

Originally Posted by actonbell

Within the Bible we have flood talked about that was to have happened. The fossils were covered in water long before they surfaced for us to discover them. I find this odd that the dots do not connect with this event. Science fact we were, the earth was engulfed in water.

Yes, but you forget to mention that in order for things to fossilize after a world-wide flood in the fashion that they did the Earth would have heated up to an unbelievable magnitude. Noah would have looked like an overcooked Thanksgiving turkey.

The Earth was never entirely covered with water. The oceans may have been in different locations (probably more like the landmasses) but there is no supporting evidence to say the Earth was ever completely covered in water. Anyway, I don't want to get on that topic, that's a whole other debate.

Originally Posted by actonbell

I also find it odd that the Bible predicts the end of mankind and all that we know it is will happen in the form of fire. And yet know one will connect the dots to the earth’s gravitational pull towards the sun to be the result of the end of mankind. The Bible tells about it, not a science book?

I don't find that surprising at all given that the ancients knew the sun was a source of heat and many of them believed god was in the sun. To me, it's not really hard to connect the dots of say God=in the sun=end of the world=god(the sun) comes to earth. It's not really a hard concept. I think a four year old could come to the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by actonbell

You talked about us coming from monkeys. I predict we will, as digression has become a knowing event with all the more people reporting their inability to think and are turning to Ginseng and such to help with that and irrational behaviors all to seen much more prevalent these days. We will digress and evolve to where one day people, human animals, will peal the banana eat the pealing and throw the fruit away.

No, you misunderstood me. I never said we came from monkeys. I said that a common misconception of evolution is that people think it means that given enough time a monkey will turn into a man.

As far as how we evolve, we will only evolve if it benefits our survival. Eating ginseng may help our individual survival, but our traits will be passed on as long as we make it to 'breeding age' and are successful enough to mate. That's a fundamental process of survival of the fittest through natural selection. Only the animal that is naturally fit enough to make it to breeding age will produce offspring. This is very important in the animal kingdom. Much more so than in our current state of affairs.

Originally Posted by actonbell

Even though the Bible is the only book recorded that has survived since the beginning of time, it is common sensuous for us to think, ignorant people wrote it, didn’t know what they were writing, it is spiritual so there fore it must not be science in evolution of the times and the changes of events to our form.

That is not true as someone else has pointed out.

Originally Posted by actonbell

Think Trooper and I challenge Ken Miller think, outside the box. The world is full of possibilities and the great thing is, you don’t have to believe in any of them in order to exist.

The world is most certainly full of possibilities. I just prefer to stay in 'sane-land' instead of trying to explain the natural world with a 2000 year old book that deals with spirits, ghosts, gods, and devils. To me, there is no logical reason to try and explain the natural world with something supernatural.

I'm assuming you don't really believe that you had a good day at work, or with your spouse because the stars lined up just right do you?

Originally Posted by actonbell

I don’t care if we did think the world to be flat. We’re ignorant. Some one smart, wrote that Bible, some one far more intelligent than we could ever dream of becoming in our world today and it survived. Look at it as if you have just discovered a fossil.

Someone smart did write the Bible. But, I have read nothing in the Bible that an ordinary man couldn't write. As I said before, had Jesus talked about DNA than I would be impressed. Had the writer talked about DNA than I would have been impressed.

Originally Posted by actonbell

Ecclesiastics darling, check it out. It’s in the Old Testament and last I checked the Bible has been index for our benefit. Try and see what they may have seen. The King James version of course as gossip is as gossip does gets more outrageous over time.

As I said, I've read the Bible, but I don't know why people think that by reading it it's going to change my mind. I think it's important to read the bible because so much of our culture such as art, history, music, etc... have been influenced by it. I also think you can enjoy the Bible and just like any other work of fiction, you can be moved to tears by it. However, it doesn't mean that it's true.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Nikk

Here is the stop which prevents one kind (Most closely related to Family) of animal from becoming another Kind.

Genesis 1 says:
20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Each animal, fish, fowl kind was created by God to reproduce after its "Kind". Now there may be a genes or a combination of genes which may keep a kind within a certain genetic perameter. But, since we have not observed one kind of animal becoming another we have to assume there is a specific mechanism that governs this. Or rather, Simply speaking, I think that each kind of animal is just not that genetically diverse to have it transverse the line that separates the species. All changes observed show a scrabling or rearanging of the genetic matterial that each animal already posesses. What we observe in nature should give more praise to the men like Mendel whose work is truly observed rather than Darwins unsupported assumtion that one species comes from another, which is not observed. In fact, if Darwin read Mendels work he probably would not have wasted his time writting "Origin of the Species".

Proof... Nikk??? Did I not ask you to bring to me some sort of observational and tested proof? Look, the reason I ask for such a thing is because any Joe Blow can make something up and make it look factual. That's why it's important to cite peer reviewed articles.

As I've already said, and perhaps you completely chose to ignore it, we can't prove that God is real so we can't really use that as evidence to explain anything else now can we? That's not science Nikk. It's like me saying that because I have gifts under the tree Santa must have brought them. I can't prove Santa exists so therefore any further explanation of why or how Santa left the gifts under the tree is speculative at best. It's not scientific, so don't pass it off as science. I'm asking for proof Nikk, not some Bible verse.

I hate to sound rude, but other than being a good work of fiction, the Bible means absolutely nothing to me. I don't feel any sort of 'connection' with it, it's just a book in my eyes. A fiction one at that. This is why it's important to back your statements up with empirical evidence.