[Steven Stahlberg]

Sorry, Awetopsy, I knew I wasn't using your quote the way you intended it but I kind of felt it illustrated my point too.

About Judeaism, yes, you're right. I guess he wasn't trying to overthrow that, I should have been more precise... but he was kind of challenging the 'old guard', the guys who claimed he was a false prophet, right? And for this he had to be as clear and unequivocal as he could. Well that's how I read it, I may be wrong.

[Awetopsy]

Steven: no worries.. yeah Jesus was challenging the "old religious", but mostly because they really werent really following the scriptures they would quote.

Everything the high Priest was responsible for in the old testament was a picture, a representation, if you will, of what the christ would do. When Jesus died he literally fulfilled that picture, that representation. He became the High priest.

Thats why the veil in the temple was ripped in two the moment he died, because no longer did man have to sacrifice to cover his sins. Jesus died an innocent of his own free will, which meant that having never sinned he became the blood sacrifice for man, effectively restoring the possibility of relationship with God and Man.

The blood of animals in the Old testament covered mans sin, The Blood of Christ in the New testament remitted mans sins. Jesus became mans advocate to God the Father, and our surety of eternal life if we accepted him as our saviour. Thats why he said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, No man comes to the Father but my Me."

[Ilsoap]

One of the arguments for the Bible contradicting itself has to do with Judas dying. Judas, after betraying Jesus, commited suicide. Matthew says that he hanged himself, but Acts he somehow fell, his body bursting open and his intestines spilling out. Doesn't that mean that one of them is incorrect?

No, actually it doesn't. Consider a hypothetical situation. A man, wishing to end his life, goes up to the top of a cliff with a gun, and shoots himself. The force on his body makes the man stagger backward, falling off the cliff, and crashing into the rocks below. Now, how did he die? Did he die from the gunshot wound, or did he die from the impact of the fall? (Or, as a remote possibility, did he die from a heart attack on the way down? )

What could very well have happened was that Judas hung himself on a high branch of a tree, but while he was hanging, the rope broke, and he fell to the ground below.

That's the type of example that sometimes throws people off of the Bible. But I too believe that anything in the Bible that looks like an error can be worked out.

(Oh, and as for that whole evolution thing. Evolution, by definition, is adaptation. Change. And animals have minor changes all the time; that peppered moth in England for example. But no species of animal has ever been proven to change into another species, nor has it been proven that they are capable of doing so.)

[balistic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ilsoap:
But no species of animal has ever been proven to change into another species, nor has it been proven that they are capable of doing so.)

---

*sigh*

Read my posts. Speciation has been observed. A bunch of times. Really.

And its not cats turning into dogs in one generation. That's not how evolution works. Its gradual change over time. You know those adaptations you acknowledge? Those show up in the genes of the species that's adapting. You know what happens when those genes get substantially different from the genotype of the unadapted population? You get a new species.

Of course with high-order animals that process is slow . . . it takes thousands of generations . . . but take a look at bacteria. Bacteria can go through thousands of generations in days. We see new bacteria evolving all the time.

Why do you think so much genetic research is done with fruit flies? They reproduce like motherfunkers . . . it compresses the evolutionary process so we can observe it better (they also have an easier to study genome).

And even if it hadn't been observed in recorded history, I'm amazed at how people are so cavalier about dismissing the fossil record.

99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Creationists would have us believe that all of them existed simultaneously at some point (otherwise, they'd have to acknowledge evolution). The mastodons mingling with the triceratops, overseen by some sparrows circling alongside pterodactyls and swarms of two-foot long dragonflies. Megalodons and harp seals and trilobytes populating the same ocean. Homo erectus, homo sapiens, australopithicii, tyrannosaurus rex, sabre-toothed tigers, and flightless catnivorous birds all competing for the same prey animals.

Curiously, velociraptors have yet to show up in cave paintings, and I've never once heard of a plesiosaur aquatic rodeo. I'm also not sure how well a diplodicus would fare during an ice age, but hey . . . or maybe it was the wooly rhinos who were forced to sweat it out in the Triassic.

The evidence is laid before you. Your god probably doesn't want you to be ignorant, or else he wouldn't have provided you with so much proof.

Unless those fossils and your genes were put there by the devil . . .

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. Do we understand fully the inner workings of both? No. Probably never will. But we know that species evolve just as surely as we know that things fall. I don't know how much more plain I can be about it without throwing fossilized homonid femurs at people.

There is no debate. Evolution happens. If you dispute this, you are either innocently misinformed, morbidly ignorant, or maliciously deceitful.

"The church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do in the church." - Ferdinand Magellan, first human to circumnavigate the globe

(He's talking about the shadow of the Earth that is cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse. Though the circumference of the Earth was calculated almost exactly by the Greeks millenia earlier, by measuring shadows cast from a stick at different lattitudes, Magellan was the first to really "observe" that the world was round.)

[Awetopsy]

quote

Quote:

Creationists would have us believe that all of them existed simultaneously at some point (otherwise, they'd have to acknowledge evolution).

Um.. no. sorry to tell you this but there are alot of creationists who believe in all the different "ages". I am one of them.

quote

Quote:

Evolution is a fact.

You're right. The definition of evolution is "adaptation" as stated by Ilsoap, and that happens all the time. However, genetic mutation, and adaptation happening in fruit flies still leave fruit flies in the end. The Aids Virus Evolves rapidly and constantly... but its still the Aids virus.

quote:

---

"The church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do in the church." - Ferdinand Magellan, first human to circumnavigate the globe

(He's talking about the shadow of the Earth that is cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse. Though the circumference of the Earth was calculated almost exactly by the Greeks millenia earlier, by measuring shadows cast from a stick at different lattitudes, Magellan was the first to really "observe" that the world was round.)

---

Isiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The book of Isiah was written between 792 - 722 BC... but scholars believe that Chapters 40 - 66 were written by somebody else around 1100 BC.

Maybe the Church did believe that the earth was flat at one point... but they sure werent working from the bible..

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Rat]

Now to ask the original question yet again: what is religion for? What is its purpose? I don't remember anyone having answered it.

[Unsound]

Peace, Love, Hope… that’s what I think religion is good for.

[balistic]

"Um.. no. sorry to tell you this but there are alot of creationists who believe in all the different "ages". I am one of them."

So creation didn't happen all at once? Mammoths were "created" hundreds of millions of years after dinosaurs? Out of nothing? Then why all the intermediate forms evident in the fossil record? If you're going to create a mammoth, create a mammoth . . . but we can see dozens of examples of protomammoths. Why haven't we seen any radical new animals created lately? Perhaps because we're dealing not with sudden creation, but with gradual changes nearly imperceptible to a few generations of humans . . .

"You're right. The definition of evolution is "adaptation" as stated by Ilsoap, and that happens all the time. However, genetic mutation, and adaptation happening in fruit flies still leave fruit flies in the end. The Aids Virus Evolves rapidly and constantly... but its still the Aids virus."

Awetopsy . . . mate . . . did you not read what I wrote?

"And its not cats turning into dogs in one generation. That's not how evolution works. Its gradual change over time. You know those adaptations you acknowledge? Those show up in the genes of the species that's adapting. You know what happens when those genes get substantially different from the genotype of the unadapted population? You get a new species."

WE HAVE SEEN SPECIATION. There is a large list (it may well be in the hundreds now) over at talkorigins, complete with references from peer-reviewed journals. Of course we haven't seen fruit flies turn into mayflies! . . . it takes millions of years for that kind of genetic change to accumulate, and each generation in between is only going to slightly different from the one before it. But we have seen species develop, and in some very interesting ways. Plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria have all been observed in the act of evolving.

You will never, ever, see one animal turn into a perfectly functioning form of a very different animal in one generation, or even a hundred. I don't know why people think this is what evolution is about. I mean cripes, legs took about half a billion years to get particularly functional.

You're falling into a logical trap Awetopsy . . . think of the evidence for evolution as an animation. We can see a sequence of frames, that when viewed in the right order, depict a particular action. What your camp is doing, is pointing out the gaps between the frames . . . "look here, when I stop this animation and go slowly, his foot goes from there to there, with nothing in between, therefore, his foot didn't actually move." . . . then someone adds an inbetween frame, so that the definition of the action is more fluid . . . "no good", says the creationist. "now you've just got two holes in the action instead of one" . . . this anti-logic can never be satisfied with evidence.

I'm not exaggerating that analogy either. Ask a creationist what a transitional fossil between a nautilus and a squid should look like and let him tell you. Now find a perfect example of that transitional form only to have him insist that you now show transitions on either side of it, one that's a bit more squid and one that's a bit more nautiloid. Find those and he'll ask for exponentially more in-betweens.

We are up to our fucking eyeballs in frames, but a puzzling group of people do not want to acknowledge that they form an animation.

Don't be one of those. Watch the animation . . . marvel at its fluidity, at its continuity. It twists and turns, branching and growing, pausing and speeding.

Maybe your god animates in real time, and what we record are the keyframes . . . what's so wrong with god being an animator?

Christians don't like it when people quote the bible out of context . . . so consider trying to view each fossilized species in its proper context, as a word in a story. Take a word out of the bible and its completely meaningless, but view it in the context of its neighbors and it begins to tell a tale.

I'm out of town for a few days . . . won't be able to reply. I'll close on this note:

All life is related . . . you need look no further that your own cells . . . you share half your DNA with everything on Earth that has a backbone . . . you've got latent genes that if reactivated could make you grow scales or gills . . . its one big, fluid animation. You think its deliberate, I think its random, but to deny that it exists all together, to suggest that life is really an endless series of slightly different, disconnected drawings . . . I'd find it hard to see much beauty in that.

[Unsound]

Here are some interesting quotes:

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” —Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

The “scientific method” of Evolution is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

[wayfinder]

i just had this thought: that jesus is the self-fulfilling prophecy, a "messias" even if he wasn't the son of god. the new testament kicked the world from barbary into humanity, pretty much, it doesnt really matter so much whether he was divine or whether the bible is an accurate recounting of events, or whatever else. the ends have mystified the means long ago.

i haven't really thought about whether this has any ground to stand on besides my own musings, but maybe someone is willing to discuss the matter.

christianity was a bit like developing democracy in sid meier's civilization (how's THAT for a stupid analogy?)

[the_monkey]

what is religion for? betterment of humanity, betterment of soul.

people tend to think that religion is a thing of the past, only a step to get us where we are today. and besides, what makes today so great? never before has the earth been so full of greed, hate, etc etc. honestly, if everyone just did what religions preach (lets start at love) the world would be a much better place for it.

[xino]

I came into this argument kind of late so forgive me

I read about 5 of the 8 pages so I know most of what has been said..if I missed anything I apologize

first off people who "believe" science think it talks about "how" things where made (i.e. big bang, evolution, etc.)..that's the major downfall of people who don't study the actual texts of religion of any kind....religion is not meant to teach HOW something happened...but WHY these events occurred....

science is not the be-all-end-all of the material world....science is based on theories which are easily proven or disproven but those theories may take years to figure out...such as the earth being flat...many well-known scientists of the time thought it was flat....yet it was SCIENCE because it was a highly agreed upon theory...yet the bible (written several hundred years earlier) states that the earth is a circle ; FYI - sphere was not a word at that point so saying that it was a false misinterpretation is wrong.

science has one major flaw and that is "everything we say is right until proven otherwise"...and yeah I can already see the response to that statement before you post them so please keep reading before you decide to discredit or argue with me

up until about 100-200 years ago all scientists of the world considered religion to be non-false...as in it wasn't not true...(damn I hate double negatives) but anyways I digress...

then some scientist came up with evolution...and ocham's razor comes into play here....it was an easy answer to a question that they couldn't prove otherwise...most scientists by definition alone consider all religions to be false...as I stated earlier religion was never meant to explain HOW such as science does but merely WHY

science has yet to find a single reason or answer as to why "evolution" happened....scientifically speaking the formula for evolution doesn't make sense....almost like the big bang theory ...no one knows why...it's just "suddenly" (read : a miracle) happened for no known reason ...that in and of itself makes all theories based on it kind of shaky...reminds me of a bible quote about building on sand

although I'm not saying science is false...I'm saying that science acts like it has all the answers yet it doesn't....science is proven wrong on a daily basis by other scientists when they come up with a new theory or when they can make anti-matter last for more than a few millionths of a second

science has no real foundation and I mean that as it is a basis of theories which leaves open the doors for proving them wrong...

religion doens't because of the simple fact you can't disprove a single thing in the bible (or any other form of it from the koran, KJV, etc.)

science is made to be disproven...religion is not...so comparing the two doesn't really work if you look close enough and ask the right answers

religion of course doesn't explain everything....it was never meant to explain everything

neither does science...but when used together in conjunction they form a tightly knit conglomerate of facts/dates/occurances from our world's past

on another note to those who ask why God (or whatever name you wish to use) allows the trappings of "evil" in our life the answers lies in a movie..the matrix (yeah yeah I know that's rather cliche but hear me out or at least try to )

in the matrix where morpheus is taken hostage the agent is talking to him about the first version of the matrix...basically it was utopia..and it didn't work because our minds couldn't believe that it was perfect...

whether you want to admit it or not our lives need hardship...if everything was given to us without us striving or overcoming those hardships what use would it all be to any of us?

I can say this easily because I was not born of a rich family as probably most of us here..

I have been homeless before...I have been utterly destitute...not a penny in any of my family's pockets...I know what it really means to overcome that which has been given to you and succeeding in life (and no I don't mean monetarily)

withoput hardships we don't learn....that is well evident in the American society today due to the breakdown of families and some of our moral structure...I do realize that was on a side note but I think I needed to say it

back to religion...

do not take the workings of an individual as the voice of God....just because Bin Laden says he is doing God's work doesn't make it fact nor truth...only in his mind and his believers...even his religion strictly forbids any jihad on other persons and the killing of any individuals is enforced by death (eye for an eye so to speak)

it's sad that when some people mention "religion" in any form they immediately think about Bin Laden or the crusades or any other vile form of humanity who said it was done in the name of God...I don't believe I ever heard God's booming voice call into the night sky and declare a holy war on anyone....that was man's undoing...don't blame God because of a man or vile dreg of society...

no one who disbelieves in religion ever thinks of the good things that religion has added to our society of the world as whole at first..they firstly think of the priests who defile children or the despots who claim they do God's work by genocide or jihads

blaming God for man's mistake is a pitfall and will get you nowhere....it's in spite of these evils of man that most religions flourish...they show the good that abounds on this earth in the face of children who kill children or men who rape the elderly or the punk who sets a dog aflame just to see it burn....

this is where true faith comes from...believing that God is there..and sees all and leaves us to our own devices...when God is needed he comes...although not in any noticable form....

take any vile atrocity that has been beset upon this world in our past and you can see that good does triumph over evil...science doesn't say how or why that happens...yet religion does...

take any act out of our history and you can see that the best thing to happen actually did happen....I find that proves the religion and not science...

science is here as a mere tool for mankind..not a basis of a belief system...science can be disproven and daily it is ....religion on the other hand has never been disproven by anything ...no facts to state God doesn't exist...no facts to state that the "big bang" in the old testament didn't happen (which was spoken of in the bible long before some scientist ever came up with the theory..ironic eh?)

religion is something that can not be disproven

science can be

and for all of those who say "well it can't be proven either"...ours is not the struggle to prove it happened..but to have faith it did happen...science is the one trying to disprove everything..not religion

and on a similar note

"do you love (insert name of significant other/family member)?

well then prove it.

you can't...you just do...and you know it....

that is faith.

(and wow I apologize I was so long-winded)

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: xino ]

[Awetopsy]

Xino: thats quite an excellent read... thanx.


Balistic:You seem to be getting a little more defensive lately. I think were are kinda discussing different points here..
Actually I did read your posts and I also went to talkorigins and looked up "speciation". They gave a few examples there and I see what you are saying. I think it was a misunderstanding before. I guess my point should be more concise, there is no recorded evidence thatany creature "evolved" from one kind of species to another. All of the examples listed there, were things like fish, plants and insects. Every one of those insedences, the Fish stayed a fish.. just a different type of the same species, which could be classified under speciation. The flowers stayed flower, which were similar. And the insects were still the same basic insect, just a variation of 1 species.. so by genetic drift eventually you might get a different type of flower... so yeah I do agree with that...

but that in no way means that any animal developed from 'primordial ooze' per se.

Concerning when God created the animals throughout the "ages", I will honestly say I dont have an answer for that yet... but since God is a creator, I assume he never stopped creating. The bible gives indication that before Adam and Eve, there were self willed beings on earth, and, as I stated in earlier posts, that Lucifer was set over the Earth, the same way a governor would be over a state while still answering to the president. When Lucifer fell, He corrupted the free wills of those under him, which then allowed for destruction to come to earth. I imagine that in order to keep any sort of population on earth there would have to be a continual re-creation, on Gods behalf, of new species which were better suited to the developing environments on earth. but this is all merely speculation.

I cannot deny the existence of dinosaurs,or the ages of dinos, nor do I want to. and I do not deny that genetic drift occurs, but even talkorigins admits that evolution (genetic drift and natural selection) occurs as adaptation.

I hope I made my point clear.

I guess Ill sum it up in this:

I, as a born again christian, do believe in evolution in its truest form. I believe God put the genetic capability into animals to change if need be (since I believe God created the genome). BUT I do not believe evolution adequately explains the origin of life.

[Ilsoap]

OK, so let's say something can't evolve overnight. It takes millions of years to evolve. And as proof, there are creatures in the fossil record that seem to show the slow evolutionary process from one species to another.

Let's take this on its logical course. A fish slowly develops lungs and a lighter bone structure, then the fins develop into leg-like apparatuses, which in turn enable the creature to take over more and more of the land, lessening its dependence on water to form its habitat, and so on, and so on, until you have a two-armed biped with a brain approximately 1600 cc's in size.

That creature would look like we do now, it might even act like we do, but it would still be... *drum roll*... a fish.

Apparently, we evolved from apes. Yet, a human and an ape can not combine and create a half-human half-ape. There are genetic barriers that stop it from happening; number of chromosomes for instance. We have 46, apes have 48. Turnips have 18, rats have 42, wolves have 78, lobsters have 100, etc. (I don't see a pattern either.) But, there is no such thing as having 1/2 a chromosome, or any other fraction of a chromosome, for that matter.

This means that, no matter how many millions of years you give a creature to evolve, there still has to be one instant in time when the number of chromosomes in its body (along with other genetic factors) instantly change, making it unable to mate with the creature it just evolved from.

That, I submit, is impossible.

[the_monkey]

nevermind.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: the_monkey ]

[edraket]

Wow...thats a good point. Never thought about it that way.

[wayfinder]

ilsoap - but it does happen. animals evolve away from each other until they are NOT able to produce offspring with each other any more. look at asses and horses. (also, you religious types, do look at more asses in general ) if they mate, the produce mules (or the other thing i don't know the english word for), which are sterile. Horses and asses have the same ancestors, but they are in the process of splitting away from each other. their genes can still be combined, but they do not live on. the species are already considered separate.

one horrible mistake that darwin made was that he did not make clear enough that humans did NOT evolve from apes - and that, of course, is the first thing creationists jump on (see evidence in posts right above this).

chimpanzees and humans share the same _ancestors_, and about a dozen million years ago, they must have been at a point like asses and horses are today: a combination of their genes would not live on. the species had separated through evolution.

the process is not fast enough for us to perceive it happening. we can only look at what is here now, and we don't see changes that span hundreds of thousands of centuries. but in hindsight, they might become apparent.

also, evolution works along with entropy, not against it. of course a human and an ape cannot reproduce. the species are already separated - evolution does not mean fusion of two different species, but diversion of existing species into different, increasingly incompatible species.

chromosomes are but a way to structure dna. their number is not as important as it might look. having a hundred chromosomes more doesn't necessarily mean that there's more and radically different dna - it's just organized differently, and that reorganization is a process that is recorded in numerous circumstances.

the missing links - creationists often say that there is no evidence of transitionary forms - well, what do you expect? the earth is not a museum, fossils are not a complete record. time does not smile on the dead, do you have any idea how many living creatures there must have been on this earth in the last, say 2 billion years? now compare the number of fossils found to that - wouldn't you say that it is much more probable that these fossils are remnants of successful, evolutionary stable, common species? it does make sense, doesn't it? evolution leaps, it has to - transitionary forms are not very stable, of course, or else they wouldn't be transitionary. neither will they be very common - evolutionary leaps are more likely to occur in a very small population anyway, and the factors that control the mutation may not be reproducable for all of the population. all this adds up to a very low probability of transitionary forms surviving the millennia in form of fossils.

[wayfinder]

also, there ARE such things as half a chromosome. some genetic diseases are exactly that - broken chromosomes, a spare chromosome (trisomy 21 for example - down syndrome. the third chromosome 21 often is not complete).

[Giant Hamster]

Hey!!!! REMOVING MY POST? MYYYYY POST? GOD'S POST????? WELLLL: HAhahaha, RIGHT! I know who it was...and guess what, Mr.I'm-too-cool? YOU'RE SOOO FIRED! Oh yes...You are now doomed to the pits of HELL for all eternity...but just wait, that's not all!: You will also get back pain, sever bowel problems, and loss of loved ones for FREE!

Enjoy you new life-plan rewriten by myself, Your God, all fuckin' mighty.

[Awetopsy]

ah, but wayfinder, those genetic diseases are just that, diseases... not neccessarily a product of evolution, and none of them help in the process of evolution either. That much is obvious.

"Horses and Mules share the same ancestors"
Thats only speculation.. there really is no proof of that. Although it could be, the fact that Hoses and Mules share similar genetic structures doesnt actually prove that they had the same ancestor... it only implies it.

"do you have any idea how many living creatures there must have been on this earth in the last, say 2 billion years?"
well if it was alot of creatures that should mean higher chances that at least one of those species would have left a fairly intact transitionary record, no? No ones denying that Genetic drift happens. That is a necessary biological occurance to ensure the survival of species. But nowhere have we seen evidence that genetic drift has produced completely new species, only new types of the same species.

Just a thought that crossed my mind:

Occams Razor: The simplest explaination tends to be the right explanation.

soooooooo:

1) Mankind evolved over billions of years from creatures that originally started out as 1 celled animals, which over the course of millions of years turned to sea dwelling creatures, which then evolved into land moving creatures, etc....

2) God created man. (genesis 1:26)

(sorry, I had to )

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[wayfinder]

disease or not, that is a frickle balance - we percieve the heavier distortions of dna as a fault, as something that goes wrong - but is it in every case? you cannot cast aside the possibility of a genetic altering helping the process of evolution. there's genetic immunity to certain "real" diseases, which is a diversion from the normal genetic code, since normal people are not immune to these diseases. it certainly is no harm to the persons involved, wouldn't you say? if there was to be an epidemic that killed everyone but those who were genetically immune by mutation, the human genome would in fact be normal WITH the genetic "defect" - within ONE generation nobody without it would be alive.

but i think humans in their current form are the wrong subject to talk about when discussing evolution. there are so many factors that spring from the advanced communication possibilities humans have, it's almost impossible to supress that noise.
the two of us can talk in realtime, though being thousands of kilometers apart. i can leech everything off my bank account, book a flight to the us, find a girl and have a baby with her. almost everyone can do similar things. noise. hard to put into a model.


"the fact that Hoses and Mules share similar genetic structures doesnt actually prove that they had the same ancestor... it only implies it. "

i am sorry, i was talking about donkeys when i said "asses".. i am not sure if that clouded the argument. mules are sterile. they are the offspring of horse and donkey. actually there are two types of mules, those whose mother is a horse - maultiere in german - and those whose mother is a donkey - maulesel in german. both are sterile. horse and donkey share ancestors, or else they would not be able to produce offspring. their offspring cannot reproduce, those combined genes of horsed AND donkey are lost. the species have separated:
evolution.

"well if it was alot of creatures that should mean higher chances that at least one of those species would have left a fairly intact transitionary record, no?"

that's what i was explaining: evolution happens in leaps. transitionary forms are not very stable, evolutionary. they keep evolving at a fast pace until an evolutionally stable form has been reached. this stability is defined through a number of factors including but not limited to the size of the population, necessity of special features (like gills that can cope not only with water, but also with air), contact to other populations of the same species. the number of generations that is required may be very, very low - in a bottleneck of a population, when only very few specimens survive, random genetic drifts carry much more weight, obviously. crossbreeding enhances these drifts, and if enough genetic resonance occurs, the genetic material of a population changes so thoroughly that by the time they reach evolutionary stability, they might have become incompatible to the species they evolved from, or whatever has become of it in the meantime.

so, evolution leaps. therefore, there are infinitely more creatures evolutionary stable (i.e. slowly adapting, but not leaping in evolution) than transitionary forms. given the unusually specific circumstances under which fossils can survive millions, billions of years, it is just as infinitely more probable that an evolutionary stable individuum is conserved.


occam's razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything


"God created man. (genesis 1:26)"

well - that one sentence and the concept of evolution are not mutually exclusive to me.

[Awetopsy]

sorry I should have said donkey.. that was my misquote. My apologies.

one thing.. Ive been reading through talkorigins.org lately and I found a part where they say that Evolution only effects a population of whatever species is in question, never an individual. Well ok, Where in history was there any creature in which the entire species ever had a 1/2 chromosome? and where did they go? what did they evolve to? It seems to me that whether you are form a creation camp or from an evolution camp, any creature with a 1/2 chromosome doesnt reproduce to a new species.

Why is the Mule that a donkey a horse produce, sterile?
cuz its missing something. Apparently evolution stopped there... In six milion years if a horse and a donkey get it on, they're still gonna get a sterile mule. (but thats speculation)

Like I stated in my last post... Were not arguing that evolution exists... we're arguing that proof doesnt exist to support animals becoming another type of animal. Genetic Drift may have happened with Horses and Donkeys, fine. but they are both still equine in nature.

I think this has ended up debating two-misunderstood-by-both-sides issues.

[edit -someday Ill learn to spell]
[edit2 - oh and thanx for the spell correction on "occam". I was too lazy to look it up.]

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Awetopsy]

Also, Ill admit that Im no expert on evolution.. all i know is what Ive read recently.

[edit - blasted spelling!!!]

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Nilwort]

quote

Quote:

we're arguing that proof doesnt exist to support animals becoming another type of animal.

Has anyone read origin of the species...that book by darwin?

I haven't but I've read others that talk about it...Charles Darwin Made his theory of evolution after observing things that happened in nature...watching the simplest of plants and other types of organisms, and how they reproduce and carry on their genes. All he did was sit around...and watch...and document...he did not make anything up, other than the theory that all of his observations are realted to eachother in the theory of evolution...

I believe in evolution because you can watch it happen...just devote your life to observing plants and animals, and document your findings, and you'll see it if you don't believe me...

You can't really watch god, and how the different angels in heaven react with eachother can you? You need to be dead to do that...and personally...I'd rather occupy myself with things that I know exist and deal with my life here on earth since there is no way that you know god or heaven exists...All you know for certain is that you are here now...

Some people need religion because it helps them have faith about being alive and gives them reasons why they are here. I am completely fine with that, in fact, more people should be religious if they feel they can't cope with existing without it...I am not better than you because I have different beliefs, It's when people assume that every other person on earth is like them...then I get pissed off and feel like saying:

"I pooped on jesus, fuck you"

[Nilwort]

BTW. In case ther is any confusion...In a nutshell evolution is:

Animals are different, even within the species, some of the differences are more suited to their surroundings...so they survive and have offspring, the lesser suited ones do not leave offspring...therefore, the best-suited organisms live to pass on their genes, and the less well adapted organisms do not pass on their genes...

so after a while it seems like the species is magically getting better...when in fact, it's only naturally allowing the best suited organisms to duplicate themselves...simple as that....survival of the fittest...


(edit)

I'd also like to add that if there is somekind of danger being imposed on the species, like predators, or viruses, or somekind of external threat to the survival of the species...it accelerates the evolution process because the adaptions of the organisms become that much more important to their survival...

Taking that into account human beings are probably not evolving very much because they are not in much danger from their environment...

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nilwort ]

[Awetopsy]

quote

Quote:

I, as a born again christian, do believe in evolution in its truest form. I believe God put the genetic capability into animals to change if need be (since I believe God created the genome). BUT I do not believe evolution adequately explains the origin of life.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Nilwort]

^ the reason that evolution is always thought to be so against christianity is that if evolution were true, it would mean that part of the bible was false...saying that humans diddn't magically appear on this earth like we are now as it says in the bible...

You can modify the bible in your own mind to accomodate evolution...and that's cool...but it's still not the "pure" form of Christianity that is attacked with the theory of evolution....

[Awetopsy]

quote:

---

quoted from talkorigins.org

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals...

---

then how did that first cell start evolving?

quote:

---

also quoted from talkorigins.org

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

---

again I as a christian dont deny this. I dont have to modify the bible one bit as evolution, as defined there, proves to me that its not an accident that life exists. It is highly unlikely that such an ability to adapt and change to accomodate ones environment would happen by chance.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Nilwort]

quote

Quote:

then how did that first cell start evolving?

I have no clue awetopsy...I don't think evolution can explain that...that's the miracle of life....what makes a human being or plant different than a rock? There are limitations to both evolution/science and christianity/religion.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nilwort ]

[xino]

the miracle of life

that's the real point of the evolution bruhaha...it's a miracle that no one but religion can explain...

and for the past few days I've been thinking about the evolution "is fact" argument...

I know most scientists do papers and experiments and such on animals evolving...I can see why since we are all animals in scientific terms...

but personally I can't comprehend evolution's origins or why I think people believe it exists (as in we all evolved from a single cell)...I do believe that our bodies change depend on our surrounds and for survival but that is a subculture (wrong word I know) of evolution which in and of itself is marred by conflicting scientific views..

what I don't understand and which no one has ever shown me where we relate to plants...I mean yeah there is evidence of evolutionary changes within animals but for evolution to be true we would just as equally be related to plants...

I can't speak for anyone else but I find evolutioin hard to grasp in that structure...not a single report I've seen has shown how we are plant-like...

hopefully what I'm trying to say makes sense because I think I might have confused myself

if anyone has any links to actual papers about this form of evolution and how we relate (i.e., humans & plants) I would very much like to read it and see if it makes sense to me

thanks in advance if anyone can find links for that because as of yet I haven't been lucky