I find most debates along those lines futile, anyway. Almost as pointless as Intel vs. PPC. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Don't take this too hard, but I think your readings are a little too invested with dogma. The creation story, and the fall, are not (in a great many christian and jewish readings) to be taken literally. One might say to do this actually weakens the overall force of 'the word.' Owing to a certain genius present in the Biblical considerations of 'word' perhaps it is also too naive to disqualify a reading for it's 'literality.' But if we're going to extend 'literal' in a historical human concept, then it is likely poorer for it.
Making some things history might damage the message in the narrative vehicle, or at least obscure it.
<strong>I think your readings are a little too invested with dogma. The creation story, and the fall, are not (in a great many christian and jewish readings) to be taken literally. One might say to do this actually weakens the overall force of 'the word.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is the interpretation of many current theologians. In my opinion, however, creation and the fall are essential to the entire point of Jesus' death, theologically speaking. The need for a savior is based on the truth of original sin. If a history of billions of years of death, destruction and pain are accepted before a non-literal Adam, then original sin cannot be taken literally. Once original sin is gone, the very reason for Jesus' death becomes symbolic rather than real, and the consistency of the Christian and Judaic religions is compromised.
I agree 100% with honest atheists who believe that:
`Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.'
G. Richard Bozarth, `The Meaning of Evolution', American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
If someone wants to use Christianity as a moral code or philosophy, then the origins debate is irrelevant. But I am in search of truth, not philosophy. Without creation Christianity has no truth.
I have to disagree. If the fall is a narrative vehicle for the expression an intrinsic inner flaw, Jesus still has plenty of redeeming he can do. Most belief structures use a 'fall' motif. Falling has a very deep psychological root. There are studies of it's comic and dramatic effect in art and literature, and on the stage.
In the religion itself, Jesus does so much more than redeem our sins. God made man. It is an act of such devine sympathy, that if you believe, it would seem to me utterly selfish to focus on what it does for us, rather than what it means.
If someone wants to use Christianity as a moral code or philosophy, then the origins debate is irrelevant. But I am in search of truth, not philosophy. Without creation Christianity has no truth.
I know you don't want to get into creationism/evolution, so I won't press the issue, but there are many very good arguments available to harmonize an ancient Earth and the modern scientific view of the world with Christian theology. Most of the Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox churches have no problem with this issue. I realize this is an Argument from Authority, but my point is that a great many Christians have confronted this issue over the years and most have no problem with it. I certainly respect your beliefs and don't wish to talk you out of them, but I do have a problem with the tautology of Creationist = Christian. If you're not implying that, then I withdraw my objection, but as the rhetoric has heated up on this issue I am hearing it more and more and it really bothers me. It turns into "them" versus "us" instead of "we". Christians have been demonizing each other over doctrinal issues for too long - we need to work at focusing on our common beliefs, rather than our differences.
<strong>I certainly respect your beliefs and don't wish to talk you out of them, but I do have a problem with the tautology of Creationist = Christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Christian is one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice on their part, nothing more, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
However, I have seen evolution and our clergy's inability or unwillingness to defend Genesis irreparably damage the faith of colleagues, and it was these experiences that began my interest in the origins debate. I have found evolution to be the single largest barrier against acceptance of Christ by people not raised in the church, even when it is explained in the context of current harmonization attempts. I'm sure different people respond to different things; this has just been my experience.
And when it comes down to it, Satan can use anything to drive a wedge between a man and God.
A Christian is one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice on their part, nothing more, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
However, I have seen evolution and our clergy's inability or unwillingness to defend Genesis irreparably damage the faith of colleagues, and it was these experiences that began my interest in the origins debate. I have found evolution to be the single largest barrier against acceptance of Christ by people not raised in the church, even when it is explained in the context of current harmonization attempts. I'm sure different people respond to different things; this has just been my experience.
And when it comes down to it, Satan can use anything to drive a wedge between a man and God.
Assuming that Satan is a real being, of course! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Man you are on a roll today. I really enjoy reading your posts. You put a voice to many of the things that I have thought and could not verbalize properly...
A Christian is one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice on their part, nothing more, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
However, I have seen evolution and our clergy's inability or unwillingness to defend Genesis irreparably damage the faith of colleagues, and it was these experiences that began my interest in the origins debate. I have found evolution to be the single largest barrier against acceptance of Christ by people not raised in the church, even when it is explained in the context of current harmonization attempts. I'm sure different people respond to different things; this has just been my experience.
And when it comes down to it, Satan can use anything to drive a wedge between a man and God.
Assuming that Satan is a real being, of course! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Gotcha. I'll admit that evolution makes explaining things a lot more complicated, but not impossible. I have generally found that Creationism is actually the stumbling block for most scientifically literate people to accepting Christ. However, my position is and always has been that if belief in Creationism gives someone a closer relationship with God, then it is a Good Thing (just don't try and tell me it's science - I know better! ). From God's perspective, I don't think it really matters. From my own experience and perspective, if Creationism were a mandatory doctrine of Christianity, I would not be a Christian. I find it that objectionable (for a long list of reasons I will spare you). However, we must all find our own paths to the Spirit, so I don't press the issue. I know we have a lot in common - so when we remain "we" we simply disagree. When it's "they're wrong" and "we're right", we start burning each other at the stake.
Grace and Peace to you in Christ Jesus our Savior.
Um, I think you will find that "scientists" reject (the theory of) creationism because it is a POS with nothing to back it up.
Unlike the theory of evolution, which has ample evidence for it to be accepted as a very good scientific theory.
I will never understand the concept that ignorance is somehow a valid alternative to knowledge.
BTW, the Big Bang is not a viable theory because people smarter than us say it is. It is a viable theory because it makes predictions that can, and have, been confirmed by experiment.
It is not perfect. No theory is, and will be replaced in the fullness of time - as our knowledge increases.
ummm... I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. If I have offended or otherwise upset you, I am truly sorry. I have tendency to be overly blunt at times.
btw, I hope that wasn't you driving that motorcycle at 200+ mph in "topend_wee.wmv"... :eek: <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
Um, I think you will find that "scientists" reject (the theory of) creationism because it is a POS with nothing to back it up.<hr></blockquote>
A POS, really? Is that a scientific term?
[quote]Unlike the theory of evolution, which has ample evidence for it to be accepted as a very good scientific theory.<hr></blockquote>
Read, unlike the theory of evolution which some smart man came up with and sounded reasonable enough, more so than things just being created by a supreme being. Evolution may be real in certain circumstances, but the universe did not evolve into existence and I damn well did not evolve from an ape.
[quote]I will never understand the concept that ignorance is somehow a valid alternative to knowledge.<hr></blockquote>
Who here is pushing ignorance? Who here is saying anything of the sort? Give me examples of ignorance being put forth as better than knowledge. People are putting faith before science in some cases, but they are not ignorant, they have just decided that science cannot explain all that the world holds for us.
[quote]BTW, the Big Bang is not a viable theory because people smarter than us say it is. It is a viable theory because it makes predictions that can, and have, been confirmed by experiment.
It is not perfect. No theory is, and will be replaced in the fullness of time - as our knowledge increases.<hr></blockquote>
I have no doubt that there will be other theories as time goes on and the current theories are found to be either somewhat incorrect or completely false. There will be more theories to replace teh ones disproven. The Big bang may be real, but it did not happen by itself. Matter cannot come from nothing. And scientists have begun speculating that for some unknown reason it did. We are just having a nice discussion here. No need to get your trousers in a tangle.
You certainly didn't evolve from an Ape: you and the ape both evolved from the same, roughly squirrel sized animal, as far as we can tell.
This is silliness. To speak of creation, like the fall, in literal, or matter of fact historical terms, is both highly presumptuous and very bad theology. Why?
The devine is infinite and man is not. To this infinity add also the plenitude of perfection. If you believe in 'the word', as an illumination of the devine, you shouldn't conflate the written word and the spoken word of God. What arrogance would lead you to believe that a being constrained by all the bounds of time and space (man), could grasp the experience of time in the mind of God? A day, a week, a year? They may mean something to us, but our solar system is just a tiny pocketwatch in the whole of existence.
Why, in the minds of some devout, does the child paradigm collapse in this of all places? Everywhere else, the theist will point to the iniquities of man. The churches are filled with sermons about the failings and frustrations that come with the limits of intellect. God can be a poet if it wants to. Poetry does not diminish the gift. Sensitive reading would tell you that the creation story serves a different purpose than the explication of existence. It is not Darwin or Hawking, nor is meant to be. Those serve a different purpose from 'the word', and you dimish both by reading one for the other.
Read, unlike the theory of evolution which some smart man came up with and sounded reasonable enough, more so than things just being created by a supreme being. Evolution may be real in certain circumstances, but the universe did not evolve into existence and I damn well did not evolve from an ape.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I mentioned in a previous post, what makes a scientific theory useful is its predictive power. Those predictions put the theory to the extreme test - either it passes or it is gone.
Consider Darwin's theory of evolution for a moment. It required two principles: an ancient Earth so there would be time for evolution to do its thing, and a mechanism for inheritance to pass traits down from one generation to the next.
In 1859 (when it was proposed) the ancient earth hypothesis was a bit of a muddle. Geologists were suggesting that the Earth was at least millions of years old (and had been for about 75 years). However, thermodynamics was showing that the Earth should have long since cooled into a solid ball (with no molten core) by then. Additionally, an ancient Earth required an ancient sun. No one could come up with a mechanism for keeping the sun shining for more than a few thousand years, let alone even one million. Darwin was skating on very thin ice when he suggested that the world HAD to be at least millions of years old.
In order for Darwin's theory to hold up, he REQUIRED the discovery of radioactivity (which has helped to warm the Earth and keep its core molten over the eons) and nuclear fusion (which is what powers the sun). He also required the discovery of DNA to pass on genetic information.
These discoveries in other branches of science happened for completely unrelated reasons. The researchers were working on their own problems that were in no way related to evolution (DNA was somewhat related, but they were trying to figure out inheritance, not directly trying to prove or disprove evolution). The fact that these enormously important discoveries in other fields all fit exactly with what was needed to make evolution work is the most powerful evidence in its favor. There was no reason, a priori, that when Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity it would turn out that the energy involved in nuclear disintegration of elements within the Earth would be enough to keep the Earth molten. There was no reason, a priori, that when Earnest Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus (and later nuclear transmutation) that the energy released in fusing hydrogen into helium would be enough to power the sun for more than 10 billion years. There was no reason, a priori, when Watson and Crick figured out the double-helix of DNA that it would lead to DNA mapping of species which confirmed the genetic relationships among species that had been deduced from external traits. If any one of these discoveries had turned out differently, evolution would have had a very serious problem. The fact is, it has passed virtually every test anyone has ever thrown at it. It stands as one of the most useful, most thoroughly confirmed theories in all of science. I would put only the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Atomic Theory over it in terms of scientific validity.
So when creationists dismiss evolution as "just another theory" it makes me want to punch them in the nose. That's like dismissing George Washington as "just another President" or penicillin as "just another chemical" or the USA as "just another country". Unseating evolution as the predominant theory of species development in biology is going to take a whole lot more than pouty "we don't like it" statements, or one or two trivial phenomena that are not well understood. It is either wishful thinking or complete ignorance that suggests otherwise.
And, like it or not, you are indeed closely related to the great apes (though not descended from them, as Matsu pointed out). Your DNA is 95% identical to that of a gorilla, and 97% identical to a chimpanzee. Which, by the way, is closer than your relationship to the Neanderthals (about 96% identical, IIRC). So the next time you're at the zoo, be sure to drop in and say hello to your cousins!
ummm... I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. If I have offended or otherwise upset you, I am truly sorry. I have tendency to be overly blunt at times. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Naw, I was responding to xenu.
Not only is evolution just a theory, but a completely unsupported one at that!
** Ducks and covers nose! **
Seriously, I'd love to discuss the creation/evolution issue, just not on a webboard, because it turns into two or three people trying to have a decent discussion while sixteen others throw insults around.
Not only is evolution just a theory, but a completely unsupported one at that!
** Ducks and covers nose! **
Seriously, I'd love to discuss the creation/evolution issue, just not on a webboard, because it turns into two or three people trying to have a decent discussion while sixteen others throw insults around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I'm relieved. Feel free to punch me anytime I say something that hits a nerve. I do tend to be rather blunt and don't always realize how what I'm saying sounds to the other person.
I agree with you on debating creation/evolution. It is such an emotionally charged issue that it is almost impossible to keep a calm discussion going. It goes right to the core of one's understanding of the Bible. Since we get much of that understanding from parents, beloved teachers, and meaningful others, it is all soaked with deeply felt emotions - a threat to any of it seems like a threat to all of it. Consequently I have learned to avoid it most times (I just couldn't let NoahJ off the hook, though <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ). I am willing to have a serious discussion of the theological implications of evolution with anyone, but it usually turns into name-calling and shrieking before long. Very frustrating way to deal with such a crucial topic. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Unseating evolution as the predominant theory of species development in biology is going to take a whole lot more than pouty "we don't like it" statements, or one or two trivial phenomena that are not well understood. It is either wishful thinking or complete ignorance that suggests otherwise.<hr></blockquote>
I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you.
I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you. </strong><hr></blockquote>
so where did man come from NoahJ? You really believe that God scooped up some dust and molded it into a human? Have you ever considered that your belief may be wrong? Consider us non-believers here, who are bashing you a bit, do you consider us to be 'testing' your faith, or are you so sure of your convictions, that you do not need to think about it?
Comments
Actually, I'm not going to get into the creation/evolution debate here.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
<strong>** deleted **
Actually, I'm not going to get into the creation/evolution debate here.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you!
I find most debates along those lines futile, anyway. Almost as pointless as Intel vs. PPC. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Don't take this too hard, but I think your readings are a little too invested with dogma. The creation story, and the fall, are not (in a great many christian and jewish readings) to be taken literally. One might say to do this actually weakens the overall force of 'the word.' Owing to a certain genius present in the Biblical considerations of 'word' perhaps it is also too naive to disqualify a reading for it's 'literality.' But if we're going to extend 'literal' in a historical human concept, then it is likely poorer for it.
Making some things history might damage the message in the narrative vehicle, or at least obscure it.
<strong>I think your readings are a little too invested with dogma. The creation story, and the fall, are not (in a great many christian and jewish readings) to be taken literally. One might say to do this actually weakens the overall force of 'the word.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is the interpretation of many current theologians. In my opinion, however, creation and the fall are essential to the entire point of Jesus' death, theologically speaking. The need for a savior is based on the truth of original sin. If a history of billions of years of death, destruction and pain are accepted before a non-literal Adam, then original sin cannot be taken literally. Once original sin is gone, the very reason for Jesus' death becomes symbolic rather than real, and the consistency of the Christian and Judaic religions is compromised.
I agree 100% with honest atheists who believe that:
`Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.'
G. Richard Bozarth, `The Meaning of Evolution', American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
If someone wants to use Christianity as a moral code or philosophy, then the origins debate is irrelevant. But I am in search of truth, not philosophy. Without creation Christianity has no truth.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
In the religion itself, Jesus does so much more than redeem our sins. God made man. It is an act of such devine sympathy, that if you believe, it would seem to me utterly selfish to focus on what it does for us, rather than what it means.
<strong>
If someone wants to use Christianity as a moral code or philosophy, then the origins debate is irrelevant. But I am in search of truth, not philosophy. Without creation Christianity has no truth.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know you don't want to get into creationism/evolution, so I won't press the issue, but there are many very good arguments available to harmonize an ancient Earth and the modern scientific view of the world with Christian theology. Most of the Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox churches have no problem with this issue. I realize this is an Argument from Authority, but my point is that a great many Christians have confronted this issue over the years and most have no problem with it. I certainly respect your beliefs and don't wish to talk you out of them, but I do have a problem with the tautology of Creationist = Christian. If you're not implying that, then I withdraw my objection, but as the rhetoric has heated up on this issue I am hearing it more and more and it really bothers me. It turns into "them" versus "us" instead of "we". Christians have been demonizing each other over doctrinal issues for too long - we need to work at focusing on our common beliefs, rather than our differences.
<strong>I certainly respect your beliefs and don't wish to talk you out of them, but I do have a problem with the tautology of Creationist = Christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Christian is one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice on their part, nothing more, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
However, I have seen evolution and our clergy's inability or unwillingness to defend Genesis irreparably damage the faith of colleagues, and it was these experiences that began my interest in the origins debate. I have found evolution to be the single largest barrier against acceptance of Christ by people not raised in the church, even when it is explained in the context of current harmonization attempts. I'm sure different people respond to different things; this has just been my experience.
And when it comes down to it, Satan can use anything to drive a wedge between a man and God.
Assuming that Satan is a real being, of course!
<strong>
A Christian is one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice on their part, nothing more, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
However, I have seen evolution and our clergy's inability or unwillingness to defend Genesis irreparably damage the faith of colleagues, and it was these experiences that began my interest in the origins debate. I have found evolution to be the single largest barrier against acceptance of Christ by people not raised in the church, even when it is explained in the context of current harmonization attempts. I'm sure different people respond to different things; this has just been my experience.
And when it comes down to it, Satan can use anything to drive a wedge between a man and God.
Assuming that Satan is a real being, of course!
Man you are on a roll today.
<strong>
A Christian is one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice on their part, nothing more, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
However, I have seen evolution and our clergy's inability or unwillingness to defend Genesis irreparably damage the faith of colleagues, and it was these experiences that began my interest in the origins debate. I have found evolution to be the single largest barrier against acceptance of Christ by people not raised in the church, even when it is explained in the context of current harmonization attempts. I'm sure different people respond to different things; this has just been my experience.
And when it comes down to it, Satan can use anything to drive a wedge between a man and God.
Assuming that Satan is a real being, of course!
Gotcha. I'll admit that evolution makes explaining things a lot more complicated, but not impossible. I have generally found that Creationism is actually the stumbling block for most scientifically literate people to accepting Christ. However, my position is and always has been that if belief in Creationism gives someone a closer relationship with God, then it is a Good Thing (just don't try and tell me it's science - I know better!
Grace and Peace to you in Christ Jesus our Savior.
Unlike the theory of evolution, which has ample evidence for it to be accepted as a very good scientific theory.
I will never understand the concept that ignorance is somehow a valid alternative to knowledge.
BTW, the Big Bang is not a viable theory because people smarter than us say it is. It is a viable theory because it makes predictions that can, and have, been confirmed by experiment.
It is not perfect. No theory is, and will be replaced in the fullness of time - as our knowledge increases.
<strong>
ummm... I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. If I have offended or otherwise upset you, I am truly sorry. I have tendency to be overly blunt at times.
btw, I hope that wasn't you driving that motorcycle at 200+ mph in "topend_wee.wmv"... :eek: <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
Um, I think you will find that "scientists" reject (the theory of) creationism because it is a POS with nothing to back it up.<hr></blockquote>
A POS, really? Is that a scientific term?
[quote]Unlike the theory of evolution, which has ample evidence for it to be accepted as a very good scientific theory.<hr></blockquote>
Read, unlike the theory of evolution which some smart man came up with and sounded reasonable enough, more so than things just being created by a supreme being. Evolution may be real in certain circumstances, but the universe did not evolve into existence and I damn well did not evolve from an ape.
[quote]I will never understand the concept that ignorance is somehow a valid alternative to knowledge.<hr></blockquote>
Who here is pushing ignorance? Who here is saying anything of the sort? Give me examples of ignorance being put forth as better than knowledge. People are putting faith before science in some cases, but they are not ignorant, they have just decided that science cannot explain all that the world holds for us.
[quote]BTW, the Big Bang is not a viable theory because people smarter than us say it is. It is a viable theory because it makes predictions that can, and have, been confirmed by experiment.
It is not perfect. No theory is, and will be replaced in the fullness of time - as our knowledge increases.<hr></blockquote>
I have no doubt that there will be other theories as time goes on and the current theories are found to be either somewhat incorrect or completely false. There will be more theories to replace teh ones disproven. The Big bang may be real, but it did not happen by itself. Matter cannot come from nothing. And scientists have begun speculating that for some unknown reason it did. We are just having a nice discussion here. No need to get your trousers in a tangle.
You certainly didn't evolve from an Ape: you and the ape both evolved from the same, roughly squirrel sized animal, as far as we can tell.
This is silliness. To speak of creation, like the fall, in literal, or matter of fact historical terms, is both highly presumptuous and very bad theology. Why?
The devine is infinite and man is not. To this infinity add also the plenitude of perfection. If you believe in 'the word', as an illumination of the devine, you shouldn't conflate the written word and the spoken word of God. What arrogance would lead you to believe that a being constrained by all the bounds of time and space (man), could grasp the experience of time in the mind of God? A day, a week, a year? They may mean something to us, but our solar system is just a tiny pocketwatch in the whole of existence.
Why, in the minds of some devout, does the child paradigm collapse in this of all places? Everywhere else, the theist will point to the iniquities of man. The churches are filled with sermons about the failings and frustrations that come with the limits of intellect. God can be a poet if it wants to. Poetry does not diminish the gift. Sensitive reading would tell you that the creation story serves a different purpose than the explication of existence. It is not Darwin or Hawking, nor is meant to be. Those serve a different purpose from 'the word', and you dimish both by reading one for the other.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>
Read, unlike the theory of evolution which some smart man came up with and sounded reasonable enough, more so than things just being created by a supreme being. Evolution may be real in certain circumstances, but the universe did not evolve into existence and I damn well did not evolve from an ape.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I mentioned in a previous post, what makes a scientific theory useful is its predictive power. Those predictions put the theory to the extreme test - either it passes or it is gone.
Consider Darwin's theory of evolution for a moment. It required two principles: an ancient Earth so there would be time for evolution to do its thing, and a mechanism for inheritance to pass traits down from one generation to the next.
In 1859 (when it was proposed) the ancient earth hypothesis was a bit of a muddle. Geologists were suggesting that the Earth was at least millions of years old (and had been for about 75 years). However, thermodynamics was showing that the Earth should have long since cooled into a solid ball (with no molten core) by then. Additionally, an ancient Earth required an ancient sun. No one could come up with a mechanism for keeping the sun shining for more than a few thousand years, let alone even one million. Darwin was skating on very thin ice when he suggested that the world HAD to be at least millions of years old.
In order for Darwin's theory to hold up, he REQUIRED the discovery of radioactivity (which has helped to warm the Earth and keep its core molten over the eons) and nuclear fusion (which is what powers the sun). He also required the discovery of DNA to pass on genetic information.
These discoveries in other branches of science happened for completely unrelated reasons. The researchers were working on their own problems that were in no way related to evolution (DNA was somewhat related, but they were trying to figure out inheritance, not directly trying to prove or disprove evolution). The fact that these enormously important discoveries in other fields all fit exactly with what was needed to make evolution work is the most powerful evidence in its favor. There was no reason, a priori, that when Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity it would turn out that the energy involved in nuclear disintegration of elements within the Earth would be enough to keep the Earth molten. There was no reason, a priori, that when Earnest Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus (and later nuclear transmutation) that the energy released in fusing hydrogen into helium would be enough to power the sun for more than 10 billion years. There was no reason, a priori, when Watson and Crick figured out the double-helix of DNA that it would lead to DNA mapping of species which confirmed the genetic relationships among species that had been deduced from external traits. If any one of these discoveries had turned out differently, evolution would have had a very serious problem. The fact is, it has passed virtually every test anyone has ever thrown at it. It stands as one of the most useful, most thoroughly confirmed theories in all of science. I would put only the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Atomic Theory over it in terms of scientific validity.
So when creationists dismiss evolution as "just another theory" it makes me want to punch them in the nose. That's like dismissing George Washington as "just another President" or penicillin as "just another chemical" or the USA as "just another country". Unseating evolution as the predominant theory of species development in biology is going to take a whole lot more than pouty "we don't like it" statements, or one or two trivial phenomena that are not well understood. It is either wishful thinking or complete ignorance that suggests otherwise.
And, like it or not, you are indeed closely related to the great apes (though not descended from them, as Matsu pointed out). Your DNA is 95% identical to that of a gorilla, and 97% identical to a chimpanzee. Which, by the way, is closer than your relationship to the Neanderthals (about 96% identical, IIRC). So the next time you're at the zoo, be sure to drop in and say hello to your cousins!
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>
ummm... I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. If I have offended or otherwise upset you, I am truly sorry. I have tendency to be overly blunt at times.
Naw, I was responding to xenu.
Not only is evolution just a theory, but a completely unsupported one at that!
Seriously, I'd love to discuss the creation/evolution issue, just not on a webboard, because it turns into two or three people trying to have a decent discussion while sixteen others throw insults around.
<strong>
Naw, I was responding to xenu.
Not only is evolution just a theory, but a completely unsupported one at that!
Seriously, I'd love to discuss the creation/evolution issue, just not on a webboard, because it turns into two or three people trying to have a decent discussion while sixteen others throw insults around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I'm relieved. Feel free to punch me anytime I say something that hits a nerve. I do tend to be rather blunt and don't always realize how what I'm saying sounds to the other person.
I agree with you on debating creation/evolution. It is such an emotionally charged issue that it is almost impossible to keep a calm discussion going. It goes right to the core of one's understanding of the Bible. Since we get much of that understanding from parents, beloved teachers, and meaningful others, it is all soaked with deeply felt emotions - a threat to any of it seems like a threat to all of it. Consequently I have learned to avoid it most times (I just couldn't let NoahJ off the hook, though <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ). I am willing to have a serious discussion of the theological implications of evolution with anyone, but it usually turns into name-calling and shrieking before long. Very frustrating way to deal with such a crucial topic. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Unseating evolution as the predominant theory of species development in biology is going to take a whole lot more than pouty "we don't like it" statements, or one or two trivial phenomena that are not well understood. It is either wishful thinking or complete ignorance that suggests otherwise.<hr></blockquote>
I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you.
<strong>
I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you.
so where did man come from NoahJ? You really believe that God scooped up some dust and molded it into a human? Have you ever considered that your belief may be wrong? Consider us non-believers here, who are bashing you a bit, do you consider us to be 'testing' your faith, or are you so sure of your convictions, that you do not need to think about it?
I am genuinely interested.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</p>