Evolution

[Baron Samedi]

[SIZE=1]I used to be....well, a fervent believer in the solidarity of the Evolution theory. You know, that they naturally evolved. It seemed to be very...well, obviously correct. It made sense. I'm not looking for a religious argument here, I don't want anybdy's head bitten off, including mine. I am just going to mention a few things that I have heard and been told and I'd like to see what you make of them.

A man I know proposed a theory to me, that there is some kind of... power or something, and that when it is required it can be tapped into, in a way, to provide for different situations. One example of this is with grain. Around the time that humans began to find the nomadic lifestyle unsuitable, and were looking for a method alternative to that, a wheat virus originated, which caused over-heavy grain heads which fall off the stalks. This, of course, made grain a perfect food supplement/source and so agriculture originated.

Camels all have scabby sort of knees, that are all calloused and rough. They need these callouses to allow them to kneel in the sand to drink water. Of course, you get callouses from hard work etc. And you would assume that the camel has these scabby coatings from kneeling in the sand. It is purely a physical thing. However, camels [i]in the womb[/i] have callouses. It has become genetic. A purely physical trait, which is incapable of being genetically passed on, has become a genetic trait. Obviously it came to be. The theory proposed, is that when something is needed...it kind of becomes.

Also, take a look at bats. Their ears are finely crafted devices, and their high pitched squeaks designed for echolocation. I can accept that these could have evolved, but evolution involves necessity, and without some guiding force, there would have been no need for the extra 'gee-gaws' that accompany a bat's hearing. It may well have evolved, but it must have been channelled.

I spoke with this man a good few months ago, and I am not sure of the veracity of all facts here. I even accept that there could be other explanations. God, or whatever it is you believe in. I just want to hear what you think about it. Plausible? Not? What do you think of Evolution?

And please, keep your claws to yourself people.[/SIZE]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well evolution doesn't necessarily imply necessity. Look at people for instance. We've been getting gradually taller and taller. Is it due to natural selection? No, not really. It's a genetic trend.

Your camel example, where a physical trait has been passed down, is nothing special. I don't know why you figure that it is strange that a physical trait such as this is genetically passed on. Thicker skin on the knees is not really on a different level from the thicker skin on an animal's foot or paw. The way their bodies are allow them to do what they do; it's that simple.

And also, the camel example is one where you might be able to say necessity implied evolution. Camels have calloused knees so they can kneel in the sand to drink water. You said it yourself.

The sorts of things you talk about don't really suggest anything unnatural in terms of a divine or metaphysical power. They might hint at some more pieces to the evolutionary puzzle, but I'm sure they can all be explained in the purely biological realm (even if we can't explain some of them just yet).

[TheShinje]

I believe that 'science', in trying to support and prove the belief in evolution, may have given proof that there is a divine origin.

Take for example, animals and plants that evolved to their surroundings, like, for example, a carnivorous plant, which has turned to eating insects to survive in areas that are void of a plants usual sustainant. Evolution teaches that, over millions of years that this creature adapted to these environments, creation teaches that God put them there the way they are, enhanced of course, to survive these elements form the get go.

The misisng links have never been found. So far, every missing link skeleton has been found to be a species of ape existing today. Even the fmaous "Lucy" was found to be a knuckle walking ape. With very little lack of evidence, I find it easier to believe in a God that created everything than the idea that it all hppended by random time and chance, that we are a universal mistake, lol.

[Gelgoog Pilot]

Hmmm the word...adaptation comes to mind here. It's the ability of a creature to well 'adapt' to his surroundings. As there enviroment changes the animal or person changes to better the chance of survival. Take us humans for example. Those that lived in the northern reaches didn't build up the large amout of pigment as those that lived in the southern hemishpere. It's the adaptation you talked about with the camels...its science, cool science but I find it nothing more.

[James]

[color=#707875]I tend to agree with Sciros here. It's absolutely clear that evolution actually exists - you only have to look at the fossil record to see that.

But having said that, there are obviously many things about it that mankind doesn't understand. The same can be said of genetics; advances have been made within the last ten years that have dramatically increased our understanding, far beyond what we knew even ten or fifteen years ago.

I mean, there are many examples of this. It's the same with the human brain too. There are many things that we know about it, based on research. But at the same time, mankind doesn't yet completely understand how the brain functions (obviously, if we did, we'd be able to cure a lot more brain-related diseases).

In regard to what Shinji said, there are some factual errors there. If you look at the fossil record, you'll find that there's plenty of evidence of evolution occurring in many different species (including human beings). This whole "missing link" thing is a bit of a misnoma, in the sense that I think people hinge far too much on it -- it's like saying that if you are missing one link in a clear evolutionary chain with a particular species, your whole theory goes out the window. But for one thing, the fossil record is pretty darn full as it is (and there is clear, irrefutable evidence of species evolving over multiple generations), but moreover, things like carbon dating have helped to further piece that chain together.

Part of the problem with discussion about this topic is that many people are ignorant about it. I mean, I find that people who try to refute evolution often misinterpret what is being said about it. Nobody is trying to actually deny the existence of God -- that is a totally seperate issue -- the only thing people are doing, is saying that there are longterm genetic changes that occur from generation to generation. Sciros's comment about people getting taller is a great example; go to a town that is thousands of years old, and you'll often find that doorways are much smaller than they are today, for example. Clearly, genes that have been passed down from generation to generation have created a longterm change/trend.

Also, in regard to what Shinji said about evolution related to adaption...if religion teaches us that God put living things here in one state and that they never changed, then religion is wrong in that sense. There are mountains and mountains of scientific data, over more than one hundred years, to refute that.

[i]However[/i], we do know that genes pass down from one generation to the next. We know that children take on certain characteristics of their parents, for example. We also know that genetic diseases can be passed down as well, which can create longterm changes.

If you were to say that God created living things, with the ability to pass on their genes as they reproduced, then I think you're getting into more plausible territory. In that sense, I think you can have your cake and eat it too. And there are plenty of people in that category.

But in terms of evolution itself, like I've said...those who are critical of it [i]generally[/i] do not understand it on any level. This is self-evident, because people who are trained in any kind of medicine must have some knowledge of evolution -- many of these fields of science would not exist without a basis in that knowledge.

So...that's all I'd say about it really. Evolution and God [i]do not[/i] have to be mutually exclusive. Even the Catholic church officially recognises that evolution is a reality (and they made this declaration quite some time ago, mind you).

I feel that these comments should preface any discussion on evolution, because if you look at previous threads on the subject, people invariably get defensive when there is no need to do so. And in addition, I have never seen anyone post in these threads who knows a great deal about evolution (including me) -- quite often, these threads end up like that one about the Blair Witch movie, and whether or not it was real. In other words, you get a lot of mixed messages, off-topic statements and assumptions presented as fact.

So if the discussion is to continue, we must be aware of those factors. And I would urge the Moderators to keep a watch on that sort of thing.[/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Sciros: In reply to your comments about how...blase you feel about the camel legs. Well, there are two kinds of traits in genetics. One is red hair for example, it is a genetic trait. It is passed on via chromosomes. The other, a scar, is purely a physical trait. It cannot be passed on. It is not in your DNA. So, should calloused knees be a DNA type of thing? No. They should not be. I am not arguing against evolution, nor God, I am merely putting forth an alternative theory. The fact of the matter is, I think that it is entirely plausible that there is some... kind of force, or something out tere. It does not have to be a kind of sentient being. Or whatever you'd like to call it. It could be a reservoir of chi, which can channel energy for particular things, it could be anything. I just wanted to see how people responded to this kind of idea. My point is that there are some factors that evolution alone cannot explain. Like the camels and the bats. On the flipside, obviously everything was not just created. Did a 'God'' begin the evolution process? Is there some kind of natural energy that aids us? Is there some sort of grand plan?

That's what I am asking. I agree with evolution...to an extent. I think that there could be a God.

I just want to see what other people think. And my whole point, Gelgoog, was that a physical trait cannot, or should not, be passable to other generations. And some forms of evolution have no sense...unless there is a controlling force. Considering the slowness of evolution, a bat's, now useful appendages, would have been useless for many generations. Unless there is something else at work, designing and planning. As such ~_^.[/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Sir Auron']I believe that 'science', in trying to support and prove the belief in evolution, may have given proof that there is a divine origin.[/quote]

Not to change the subject or whatnot, but I'm curious as to why you put the word science inclosed in quotes like that?

Anyway, 'science' has proven evolution.... however, it's people who don't understand evolution that automatically assume that "evolution" means human evolution from ape, when in fact it doesn't. As we all know, that has yet to be proven.

It's like James said, there's too much we don't know about evolution, genetics, whatnot. And because scientist don't know everything about it, it is all discounted as a simple myth or hypothesis. It's kinda sad really because there is no proof to this thing called religion either, yet there seems to be no debate in whether or not Jesus walked the earth or that God is real or whatever. I'm not trying to start a debate here, I'm simply trying to state my point as best I can. So yeah.

[James]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']I just want to see what other people think. And my whole point, Gelgoog, was that a physical trait cannot, or should not, be passable to other generations. And some forms of evolution have no sense...unless there is a controlling force. Considering the slowness of evolution, a bat's, now useful appendages, would have been useless for many generations. Unless there is something else at work, designing and planning. As such ~_^.[/size][/quote]
[color=#707875]And then there are genetic mutations and so on. There are many concepts and many explanations. But I would say that science knows more about evolution than you may first think.

The problem that I see, is that sometimes if science doesn't automatically know "everything" about a certain subject, people will say something like "Oh, well, there's [i]science [/i]for you."

But really, if you want to get realistic, you'd have to say that science is really the only way that we have certainty about most things. If the laws of physics weren't correct, your car wouldn't work, nor would a plane or a boat. We wouldn't be able to travel in space, either.

I think, in this regard, people take science for granted. The idea that science knows so little about evolution is an idea that stems from ignorance of the scientific research that has gone into evolution over many years.

But also...the idea that science is opposite to religion is not really true. Sure, science debunks a lot of religious theories about how the world developed -- but that's a given. Thousands of years ago, mankind also thought that the planet was flat and the center of the universe. It's logical that as we learn more, we actually change our ideas about things.

However, I can say that there are [i]many[/i] scientists who are also religious. But while they have a sense of religion, they do not "presume the answer and try to fit the evidence to match that answer". Science works the other way around -- you start with evidence and you strive towards an answer. Religion tends to start with an answer and then attempts to force/create facts to fit a square peg into a round hole, as it were.

The cool thing about science (and the reason that it has continued to develop and provide us with many very concrete facts about our world), is that [i]nothing [/i]is automatically presumed. If someone comes up with contrary evidence, it is considered and researched. And in many cases, a theory will change as a result of superior new evidence. See what I mean? There is a certain flexibility, that will always ensure that knowledge develops, rather than receeds.

I think that this philosophy is important in the context of this discussion. And it's a good way of illustrating that you can be a person of great faith in God, [i]without [/i]compromising your ethics in science, by not simply deciding on a conclusion without evidence. I mean, you can always seek new evidence and be open to new conclusions, rather than making a decision at the start and then seeking only the evidence that fits your constructed idea. I hope that makes sense.

But that is something that really relates to the philosophies behind research. Fundamentally, none of us here are qualified when it comes to talking about evolution in great scientific detail. And, to some degree, I think that will always render this kind of discussion moot.

However, it's fine to discuss one's own beliefs. In fact, I think we've had several threads like that before...and [i]most [/i]of them were pretty civil.[/color]

[Dan L]

I'M A CHRISTIAN. I DON'T LIKE CHANGE. THEREFORE I DON'T LIKE EVOLUTION!!!!!!

sorry, kidding :p just couldn't resist making fun of the more conservative people of my faith. Not necessarily the ones who oppose evolution, but those who do so for stupid reasons.

The actual answer to the question "is evolution really the way it happened or not" doesn't particularly concern me any more.

I did biochemistry at uni for two years- so I'd like to believe I have an above average grasp on the concept, seeing as evolution is a vitally important part of biochemistry.

I know a great deal of both the pro-arguments and anti-arguments, and trust me, there are fundamental flaws in [i]both[/i]. And it's not as if either one has flaws to a lesser degree.

What can not be disputed is that things change. Fossils and history, and experiments, have already proven that.

What [i]can[/i] be disputed is the degree to which things do change. Shinji's "missing link" point is half correct. There is no "missing link" as such- the majority of the chain is missing, and only a few links have been found. The reason people refer to a "missing link" in evolution is that the fossils which have been found, all tend to be clumped around certain species.

Thus, the theory goes, if they were all clumped into a certain species, where are the in-betweens? the things which are vital to find in order to prove that new species are actually being formed from the old ones, and not just appearing all of a sudden. This isn't so much small changes like a longer neck or some kind of adjustment to something that's already there- but rather completely new things which define the species as a seperate type of species altogether.

In all honesty, the theory does hold some backing, but at the same time, fossils are only left in specific circumstances- most dead animals just rot over time rather than being preserved as fossils. If those circumstances came about at a certain time, then it makes sense that all the fossils would be grouped into certain species. If it happened randomly, then it doesn't. So though it's a good argument, we don't know quite enough to say whether it's scientifically sound or not.


Personally I'm all for micro evolution, unsure about macro evolution, but completely opposed to the idea that evolution brought about life, rather than just keeping it going.

The reason for that is simple. Even the most simple, unicellular life, contains massively complex protiens. They are amazing in what they do- often they operate by means of transforming their shape when bonded with a substrate, which will make them act like a little moving arm in one case, it will make them open up to allow things into a cell in another, and it will break a moelcule into several chunks in another.

In order for a cell to properly function, it must have these proteins, and have them enclosed within a protein wall.

DNA is the other crucial element, and this contains all the coding for the proteins, so that another protein can go about construcing the proteins from the code.

In order to have a fully functioning, reproducing cell, you [i]must[/i] have:

- DNA containing genetic information and the coding for ALL the necessary proteins, so that they can be reproduced when the cell splits.

- All the necessary proteins, so that the cell will actually do what it's supposed to

- The particular protein which uses the DNA code to produce other proteins- and amino acids with which to build the proteins. (This protein must also be reproduced so that it can make more proteins in the new cell)

- A cell wall, made of proteins, which must be built by yet another protein, which is constructed by the one which uses the DNA code.

-Yet another protein to split the DNA and replicate it so that the new cell can have it's own copy of the protein coding to pass on to it's duplicate.

ALL of these components must be present before evolution can even occur- because without these things a cell cannot reproduce, it cannot pass on it's genetic code, and thus it cannot evolve. Everything is necessary, with the possible exception of the cell wall, which is necessary only to contain the cell, not to evolve.

The proteins are dependant on the DNA in order that more of them can be made, the DNA is dependant on one particular protein in order that it may be split, and both are dependant on the protein-building protein in order to actually get anywhere.

As I've said, evolution can not produce that, it can only build upon it. There is the fundamental flaw, not in evolution, but in the theory of evolution as a substitute for creation.

(I haven't used any scientific names for the proteins- sorry about that. I did do biochemistry, but it was a while ago and my books are back in stoke on trent so although I remember HOW it works, I don't remember what the technical names for the substrates are..)

[James]

[QUOTE=Dan L]
What can not be disputed is that things change. Fossils and history, and experiments, have already proven that.

What [i]can[/i] be disputed is the degree to which things do change. Shinji's "missing link" point is half correct. There is no "missing link" as such- the majority of the chain is missing, and only a few links have been found. The reason people refer to a "missing link" in evolution is that the fossils which have been found, all tend to be clumped around certain species.

[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Yep, this is something that further underlines what I was saying above. Although there are debates around the specifics of how it works and so on, there is no debate that evolution (on some level) does exist. As I mentioned earlier, the Catholic church has already accepted this reality, because there comes a point where you can no longer ignore scientific evidence.

Having said that, creation is a totally different point in my view. I don't think that [i]anyone [/i]knows the true story of creation.

On the one hand, it is clear that there are very few scientific explanations for creation (although recent studies on the "big bang theory" have had some very fruitful results; you may have read about this if you're an avid news follower).

But at the same time, the Biblical story of creation is very quaint. I've talked about it before (the idea that man came from woman, when biologically, it's the other way around), as well as the timing issues, and the great flood...and all sorts of things that just don't gel with geology and other scientific studies.

So, I find it acceptable that there are people on both sides of the coin who can come up with their own ideas about how the Earth was created and how life began.

However, for me personally...I can honestly tell you that I don't know, and nobody [i]really [/i]knows. I think it will be a long time, with a lot more research, before anyone conclusively knows for sure. I am definitely open to whatever answers come up as research advances on that subject.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Dan L']As I've said, evolution can not produce that, it can only build upon it. There is the fundamental flaw, not in evolution, but in the theory of evolution as a substitute for creation.[/quote]

The fundamental flaw in what you said, my friend, is you figure that the theory of evolution tries to explain how life originated. There's a different theory for that.

Creation and evolution don't exactly concern the same things. They do to a very large extent, because Biblical creation does involve the origin of living things (most of which are accounted for in the theory of evolution, the ones not being the first ones to appear on the planet). But those that think the theory of evolution explains the origin of life, don't really know what they're talking about, no offense. Even Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" refers to how different species arise from the same predecessor, not how life appeared on Earth.

That having been said, the theory of [macro] evolution has more supporting evidence than so many widely accepted theories that I find it utterly confusing how people claiming to be educated say it has all of these "fundamental flaws." I've read through bits and pieces of creationist drivel such as "Disproving Evolution," and if you think for even a second about any of the "facts" they bring up, you realize that they are throwing really bad science at you and using clever language to make it sound legitimate. Every time.

[James]

[color=#707875]One of the biggest problems with this whole issue is the "junk science" out there -- I agree on that aspect.

I've plugged it before, but I strongly recommend that those interested in the subject (religious or otherwise) read a book titled "Telling Lies for God", by an Australian geologist, Ian Plimer.

The forward for the book is actually written by a former Sydney Archbishop...[i]so[/i], it's [i]not [/i]at all an anti-religion or anti-Christian book. In fact, the archbishop goes into some length to discuss the problems with "creation science" and how it harms religion more than helps it. He also talks about the need to be both ethical and intellectually honest (the latter of which is especially important).

It's a great read, because it goes into very specific detail about both creation science groups (and examples of intellectual dishonesty and "junk science"), as well as specifically debunking various creationist explanations about the planet's development, by contrasting them against current geological knowledge.

It would actually be a great book to talk about in the context of this overall discussion. And, I think it would make religious people in general feel far more at ease with the concept of their own beliefs gelling quite well with science -- but without the junk science that creationist organizations put forward.[/color]

[Dan L]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The fundamental flaw in what you said, my friend, is you figure that the theory of evolution tries to explain how life originated. There's a different theory for that.[/quote]

[quote name='Dan L]There is the fundamental flaw, [b]not in evolution[/b], but in the theory of evolution [b]as a substitute[/b'] for creation.[/quote]

I thought that last paragraph or so more than covered my intentions- but obviously I need to be a bit more clear. There [b]are[/b] a large number of people (often the ones who know nothing about evolution itself) which use evolution as an "anti-creation argument". As I already said in my post, I have no problem with evolution itself, only the extent to which some poelple apply it, such as a means of producing life rather than adapting it.

It was this application of evolution, not evolution itself, which I was arguing against, and that was my intention from the start.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote=James]And then there are genetic mutations and so on.
[/quote]
I agree with that...completely. But the thing is, isn't it a thousand, or a billion times more likely for a bat to develop specialised eyes? Or take to sleeping in the open? Or, even become a non-nocturnal creature? What kind of impossible odds, what kind of chances are there of a genetic mutation occurring, which suddenly gives them sonar? 6.23x10^23? To 1? Those kind of odds?

Genetic mutations are a perfectly acceptable idea, but there are some things which don't make sense...and I am just trying to say, that, while I don't know a lot about it, I think that attempting to use a purely scientific base for it all is difficult. Well, the scientific research is acceptable, but if they try to keep it in our physical realm there could be some problems. Maybe it is something else, like....alien interference or something. Some people even think that we're all an experiment of some kind, created by aliens. Though admittedly far-fetched, you could keep the evolutional debate within the 'four walls' of our world by using that... or you could take it one step further and claim that something else was at hand i.e. a god/whatever etc.

Science is a good thing, I agree completely with that. For some reason I feel like you're missing my angle... but then again, I could be wrong. Maybe they know how stuff like the bat came about. But, excepting whether or not they know it, and I am reasonably sure they don't, isn't it highly likely that there is some kind of.... bleh, I don't know the word for it, at hand? Isn't the likelihood of some of the specialties of some creatures incredibly low? I'm arguing that. Not against science, nor am I a proponent of religion...I'm arguing that there may be a third route.

If you check back on past evolutionary threads, you can see that I've been one of those who have advocated and spoken of the effective meshing of both science and religion. Science and religion can both be compatible, if both sides accept that they're not necessarily 100% correct on all terms. As you said, the Church has accepted evolution. Does that not illustrate that point?

[quote=Dan L]I'M A CHRISTIAN. I DON'T LIKE CHANGE. THEREFORE I DON'T LIKE EVOLUTION!!!!!!
[/quote]
Hey! I said no flaming! :p

As for the whole fossil argument, that they don't always fossilise...well I am with you all the way on that one. I used to be a really, really big dinosaur fan, for about 3 years. I had so much information on them...it was crazy, lol. And the odds of fossilisation are pretty low, whilst the odds of good, clean fossilisation are even lower.

[quote name='Dan L']Personally I'm all for micro evolution, unsure about macro evolution, but completely opposed to the idea that evolution brought about life, rather than just keeping it going.[/quote]
I [i]used[/i] to disagree with that, in particular the last part. But now I have...come to realise how unlikely it is that it could happen. Well, not now, but a few months ago I began seriously thinking on it. All the information you presented on the DNA and protein just backs it up.

One thing I think about Creation is that religious people refuse to look at the science aspect, and science people refuse to look at the religious aspect. This is stereotypical, I know ~_^, but maybe some parts of the bible are not true. And maybe some aspects of Atheistic Creation are unlikely or impossible, which, coherently leads to the meshing of the two factors. Right? Or wrong?

As I have said before, in other threads, who is to say that 'God' didn't start it all, and at stages help it along. I believe that someone once said something about God's time. Who knows how long God's day is? What if 'God' had powers...so, he created cells, and in a split second [a.k.a a few millenia] guided them into part of what we now know? There are certainly lots of issues surrounding both sides, and you can't directly mesh both of them, but a middle road certainly does seem to be a highly plausible route.[/size]

[TheShinje]

[quote=James][color=#707875]Also, in regard to what Shinji said about evolution related to adaption...if religion teaches us that God put living things here in one state and that they never changed, then religion is wrong in that sense. There are mountains and mountains of scientific data, over more than one hundred years, to refute that.[/color]
[/quote]
Religion doesn't teach that, in fact, the Buible never says that God put things the way they are and they haven't changed. I was just trying to put forth the possibility that he might have, and that the special features that have evolved on the specific animals to help them survive [i]may[/i] have been designedx form the start. It is also a possiblity that these advancements are the product of a micro-evolution. Sorry if it sounded like I was coming off as being decidedly one-sided here.

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Not to change the subject or whatnot, but I'm curious as to why you put the word science inclosed in quotes like that? [/quote]
Because It wasn't my intention to inclued [i]all[/i] of science. I was specifically referring to the evolution-science that is dedicated solely to promoting atheism over God, there are a number of professing Christians in the science field, so including them in the argument seems silly.


[quote]It's kinda sad really because there is no proof to this thing called religion either, yet there seems to be no debate in whether or not Jesus walked the earth or that God is real or whatever.[/quote]
I agree that you can't prove God exists, that's why it's called [i]faith[/i]. I didn't intentionally set out to say " evolution, BAH, religion, the only way." :p


[quote][color=#707875]But at the same time, the Biblical story of creation is very quaint. I've talked about it before [b](the idea that man came from woman, when biologically, it's the other way around)[/b], as well as the timing issues, [b]and the great flood[/b]...and all sorts of things that just don't gel with geology and other scientific studies.[/color]
[/quote]
Actually, according to the Bible, God made woman out of Adam's rib. Man[i][b] didn't[/b][/i] come from woman.

[quote][color=#707875]I've plugged it before, but I strongly recommend that those interested in the subject (religious or otherwise) read a book titled "Telling Lies for God", by an Australian geologist, Ian Plimer.[/color]
[/quote]
I'll be in Australia in about a months time, so I'll see if I can find this book and give it a read. It's not like I'll ignore everything that I think might contradict my beliefs, It's just we don't have that book here.


As for the flood, well, there are several artifacts such as the grand canyon that have fish fossils that can be attributed to a worldwide flood. I may edit this If i get mor time to explain that fully.

[Dan L]

[quote name='Sir Auron]Actually, according to the Bible, God made woman out of Adam's rib. Man[i][b] didn't[/b][/i'] come from woman..[/quote]

I noticed that too, but I think you'll find that biologically, man comes from woman. So even though James got the order mixed up, his point was still correct.

[quote name='Sir Auron]Religion doesn't teach that, in fact, the Buible never says that God put things the way they are and they haven't changed. I was just trying to put forth the possibility that he might have, and that the special features that have evolved on the specific animals to help them survive [i]may[/i'] have been designedx form the start. It is also a possiblity that these advancements are the product of a micro-evolution. Sorry if it sounded like I was coming off as being decidedly one-sided here.[/quote]

Firstly, there is more than one religion. James didn't even specify in his quote. Bear in mind, Shinji.. er.. Sir Auron :p that although you and I are looking at it from a Christian point of view, when James says "religion", he probably means religion on the whole, not only Christianity or "other religions" as we would probably see things.

Also, James said that [i]relgion[/i] taught that, not the Bible. You and I both know that although the Bible is the source of the Christian relgion, the religion itself as it is known today, isn't the source of the bible. Firstly because it is God-inspired (but certainly not without it's human influences), and secondly because all of it was written (though not compiled) either before people were even called "Christians", or before it was so mainstream and corrupted as it has become today. The Christian religion in various forms has been known to teach a lot of things which are contrary to it. Examples include the KKK, the infamous crusades, the spanish inquisition?.. none of them have anything to do with evolution, but they're all examples of things which religion teaches, but the Bible doesn't.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Sir Auron]Because It wasn't my intention to inclued [i]all[/i'] of science. I was specifically referring to the evolution-science that is dedicated solely to promoting atheism over God, there are a number of professing Christians in the science field, so including them in the argument seems silly.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Interestingly enough my highh school biology teacher was a devout Christian adn never once did he say that Evolution science was dedicated to promoting atheism over creationism and over religion in general. I think that's a funny way of looking at it. [/color]

[quote name='Sir Auron]Actually, according to the Bible, God made woman out of Adam's rib. Man[i][b] didn't[/b][/i'] come from woman.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] If you want to get really techinial about that aspect of the Bible there's a theory that Eve wasn't the first woman. Every hear of Lilith? Her and Adam were created at the same time. But alas that part of Genisis was edited out.

Bible aside, I don't see any men giving birth these days. If that was still the case that man didn't come from woman I think my husband would be over here stateside having the baby.[/color]


[quote name='Sir Auron']As for the flood, well, there are several artifacts such as the grand canyon that have fish fossils that can be attributed to a worldwide flood. I may edit this If i get mor time to explain that fully.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I went on a few guided tours of the Grand Canyon and every National Park Guide there has said that the Grand Canyon was created billions of years ago by the [b]Colorado River[/b] rushing through it. Nobody ever mentioned a flood the three times I was there.[/color]

[lonewolf228]

I'm an atheist, but I dont belive in evolution,
Here's why:
If we evolved, then why are there still like monkeys?

Um, I'm not saying why I am an atheist because people would get pissed and stuff..

But I will post it here XD(Scroll all the way down........)

[url]http://hometown.aol.com/mechwarriorhard/myhomepage/profile.html[/url]

And I even have more.

BTW: I dint read the whole thread becuase I came here to do something else.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=lonewolf228]I'm an atheist, but I dont belive in evolution,
Here's why:
If we evolved, then why are there still like monkeys?
[/QUOTE]

Here's what James has been talking about all along: someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about evolution. Just plain nothing. Not a single thing.

Monkey... and apes, for that matter, have been evolving too. Alongside humans, fish, crocodiles, cockroaches, and everything in-between. If apes evolved, then why are there still single-celled organisms, eh?

My suggestion: read a book on the matter. Or, better yet, visit a decent website. Maybe something involved with the American Museum of Natural History, so you know you can rely on it.

[Gelgoog Pilot]

[quote]I agree with that...completely. But the thing is, isn't it a thousand, or a billion times more likely for a bat to develop specialised eyes? Or take to sleeping in the open? Or, even become a non-nocturnal creature? What kind of impossible odds, what kind of chances are there of a genetic mutation occurring, which suddenly gives them sonar? 6.23x10^23? To 1? Those kind of odds?[/quote]

Ok...yes the odds are incredibly high that I agree with. However, take a look at the MILLIONS or even BILLIONS of different species out there. In fact we find unknown creatures everyday. This no doubt adds credibility as to why only a few animals get certain abilities such as sonar. I find that physical trits can be transfered through genes. Skin pigment which I used in my example shows this. And really a scar isn't considered a trait.

Alright, back to my point. Although I won't dispute your concept of a thrid path, I do say that camels growing caluses while still in the room isn't that phenominal. Over time it was seen that the rougher skin on the knees was a helpful trait. Thus, over time the DNA 'ordered' the skin in the knee area to grow tougher to withstand the sand. Such as with traits that are no longer needed. Take our tails for example. Before we fully evolved into what are right now it was theorized that we had tails to help keep balence like other animals. Over time our tails grew smaller and smaller as the legs we evolved into had better balence. It's my bet that over time we will see the tail bone further decrease in size. Already there are genetic mutations that produce no tail bone at all. I know this because I have no tail bone to speak of. (However I think the fact that my mother was a diabetic is to blame)

Alright I'm a Chatholic. Personally I'm not happy with my religion. Ok not the point. I have concluded that perhaps the 'Old Testement' was merely made up. I find information in the new testament much more plausable. Though I don't refute that God may have created us I'm just saying maybe not in that way.(btw Chibi could you tell me more of this Lilith thing.)

I have more to say but I think it isn't for this topic.

[TheShinje]

[quote=ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9400d3]Interestingly enough my highh school biology teacher was a devout Christian and never once did he say that Evolution science was dedicated to promoting atheism over creationism and over religion in general. I think that's a funny way of looking at it. [/color]
[/quote]
Oh no, I didn't mean ot suggest all evolution science was dedicated to promoting atheism over God, the point I was making was that I was referring specifically to those who do, that quote was part of my reply to Transtic. It's a funny way of looking at it indeed, as [b]I know[/b] not everyone who works in and with the evolution theory is dedicated to overthrowing God, but some are.

On other aspects of Evolution, such as micro evolution, it is harldy refutable, taking the Bible into acocunt and with what scientific evidence is present. The Bible teaches that creatures were placed on this planet with a divine commandment to go forth an multiply, assuming here this means adapting to an ever-changing world to continue on with this plan? Over time I have come to accept that micro evolution can really fit with my faith. Macro evolution is another thing altogether, teaching that the process created life, and I object. I find there is plenty of evidence, such as how species of birdlife found out the southern hemisphere was warmer in winter, thus beginning migrations that some birds are notable for.



In the end though, I do feel unqualified to talk about this subject as if i my personal opinions were an abosulte truth, if they were, then absolute truth would change a bit here and there, contradicting it's meaning. :p