Date: 5/27/2003 1:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 22852
Before I put my son in Catholic school I asked the Principal about this and she said "Hoe do we know Adam and Eve weren't prime apes" That is how I think about it.  |
Date: 5/27/2003 7:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
ok I can answer one of your questions. The reason why evolution wasn't discovered until 200 years ago was because the world lived in a predominatly Christian world (no offence to the christians but I'm speaking from a history major's point of view). Any views that acted against the Christian church were killed off. We saw it in the early part of the 20th century where evolution was banned from being taught in schools even though social darwinism (based on the same man who fine tuned the theory of evolution Charles Darwin) ran rampant. The Church and governments (there still wasn't a large amount of countries that had church and state separate) used what was good for them. Social Darwinism is basically a rewording of Darwins "survival of the fittest" theory. That's one for you and I hope it helps you out!  |
Date: 5/27/2003 10:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
This is a good post, JesusFreak. With such a controversial subject, I suggest you keep two thoughts in mind: 1) There is evidence in support of evolution and it should not be flippantly discarded; 2) Move away from the idea that the earth has to be 6,000 years old; I believe you will lose focus if you do. I think there are several good indicators that creation occurred: 1) With the abundance of available fossil evidence, it is my understanding there are no fossils indicating transitions between species. Evolution predicts there should be many fossils of plants and animals in the development process. 2) The mechanism for the advancement of evolution seems ineffective. Mutations--changes in the DNA--are harmful at least 99.9% of the time. [Some sources say 99.999%] If only one in every 1,000 generations produces a beneficial change, how long would it take to yield all the diversity of life we see today? 3) The Law of Biogenesis--that life comes only from life--was confirmed in the late 1600's. This result has been verified countless times since. Despite expensive and intensive experimental efforts to show that life could have arisen by chance under the right conditions, the Law of Biogenesis remains intact. To be valid, evolution required the suspension of that law at least once. Creation is compatible with the Law of Biogenesis. One final point to add to Kurtvedder's information: the idea of higher forms of life arriving from lower forms of life has been taught for at least 25 centuries, since the time of the Greeks. It became immensely popular after Darwin published "The Origin of Species," predominantly as a backlash against the narrow-mindedness and ignorance of religious leaders, who assumed the earth couldn't be older than 6,000 years and therefore rejected clear evidence to the contrary. I know this is long, but I hope it helps. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.  |
Date: 5/28/2003 9:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
This is a good post, Jesus Freak. In my quest for Biblical understanding where there appears to be a physical contradiction, I look at what the Bible COULD BE attempting to explain vs. what a RELIGION may try to tell me it means. I believe that God Created this world and I can believe He Did That with a Big Bang (and I can even give literal interpretation to that . I believe the physical evidence is out there to support "humanoid" existence prior to the appearance of Adam and Eve and I don't find that contrary to the Bible. If the evolutionists can draw out an accurate time-line of human evolution due to fossilized remains and have nothing to connect it to "modern man" but with the phrase "missing link", might I suggest that "missing link" IS GOD? That God did have this "evolution" going on but at the time of Adam instilled His Soul into him -- that soul being the consciousness of "man", awakening him to the realization that life consists of more than a conscience i.e., a decision making process of how to survive, which is what I refer to as the spirit, thus giving rise to the eternal (and internal) tug-of-war for people to either listen to their heart (soul/conciousness/Essence of God) or listen to their mind (spirit/conscience/necessity of "worldly" survival). The Bible, I feel, gives us instruction on how to reconcile the two within our own bodily (physical) restrictions, including showing the struggles people of the past have had with regard to listening to their soul (GOD HIMSELF) do something that is so far removed from what their own minds (spirit) tells them is "right". God Bless.  |
|
Date: 5/28/2003 9:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
BTW, I feel when the Bible refers to people as having being filled with the Holy Spirit it means that they are able to reconcile their soul with their spirit within their physical existence and not have any internal strife about What Is. God Bless. |
Date: 5/28/2003 2:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
My suggestion is to never use alfrowi's "99.9% harmful" routine. The word "harmful" itself is so ambiguous and undefendable that you'll lose more credence in the argument than you'll gain if you reference it. Also, no real study would ever claim to be capable of judging fairly whether some mutation could be "helpful" or "harmful".  |
|
Date: 5/28/2003 2:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
And pay close attention, JesusFreak, at how when you asked for proof OF creation, you were bombarded with statements AGAINST evolution. |
|
Date: 5/28/2003 10:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or harmful. In the discussion of evolution, a beneficial mutation would be one that simultaneously improves an organism's ability to survive and advances it--even slightly--toward becoming a higher life form. A neutral mutation would have no net effect on an organism, and a harmful mutation would limit or hinder an organism's ability to survive or would not advance it toward higher life forms. The terms are not as ambiguous as they may appear. If evolution is true, mutations must accomplish more than enabling a species to survive more effectively in its environment; they must produce some element of a higher life form. Regarding a harmful rate of 99.9%, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/, a site that refutes creationist claims, has no problems accepting a helpful mutation rate of 1 in a million, a 99.9999% failure rate. According to this site, my estimate was 1,000 times more conservative. |
|
Date: 5/29/2003 8:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 61928
In lab settings, on simple organisms. That percentage says nothing about mutations in larger, more complex organisms in a real world setting. |
|
Date: 5/29/2003 8:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 61928
Just consider that for most apparent circumstances, intelligence is in many ways a harmful mutation. |
|
Date: 5/29/2003 11:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Are you offering up yourself as proof of that, Slappy? God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/29/2003 1:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
And still we've yet to hear one solid fact that would support creationism as a plausible theory. |
|
Date: 5/29/2003 10:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Thanks for your responses, SlappyWhite. Your point about mutations in lab settings and the real world is one I hadn't considered. Although data to the contrary probably exists, the research I've done never indicates a rate of helpful mutations greater than 1%. It seems to me that mutations in one-celled organisms would have greater impact than changes in higher organisms. If the 1% success rate is for simpler life, then the rate must decrease as organisms become more complex, since more changes are required for an equivalent degree of change. Consider then, that as organisms increase in complexity, evolution "slows down," because the rate of successful mutations is lower and the time between generations [as a rule] increases. If this opinion is correct, it should take longer for humans to evolve from the simians than for trilobites to evolve from one-celled organisms. In conclusion, I think the failure rate of 99.9% is too low for higher organisms. |
|
Date: 5/30/2003 10:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 61928
Logic is often wrong in a reality so dominated by chaos. |
Date: 6/3/2003 11:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 15319
Just my two cents Jesus Freak. I think that YES, God did create the world and life on it. However I also believe life crawled out of the oceans (primordial soup) Does this contradict? Nope, I said I believe God created life, NOT Adam and Eve (or Lillith). I think God created the first organisms and things kinda rolled on from there.  |
52140 Category:(Discussion) Created:(5/27/2003 1:49:00 PM)