Creation - Evolution Continuum

[painted wolf]

true blood-
its important to remember that human blood cant always be used for humans... their are factors such as the ABO factor as well as the Rh factor... Rh factor is so strong that it is a major cause of miscarrage.

you can't do a blood transfusion from a dog to a horse either...

and I don't see any evidence of the 'river ape' theory... I'm more of a 'savana ape' person myself.

wa:-do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can animal blood be used for human blood transfusions?

Actually, the answer is yes. I happen to be a hemophiliac, and I infuse myself with a mixture of synthetic and animal-harvested clotting proteins.

And it's a good thing, too, because it has meant hemophiliacs no longer have to worry about hepatitis C etc. that comes from human blood supply.

 

[inca]

...only an eventual f***#&@ virus that kills you and the whole human civilization. You remember AIDS and SARS? But I don't judge. If I were you I'd probably done the same!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

...only an eventual f***#&@ virus that kills you and the whole human civilization. You remember AIDS and SARS? But I don't judge. If I were you I'd probably done the same!

inca, WHAT are you talking about?

:drink: :lol:

 

[inca]

Scientists are worried cos the use of animal parts in human beings could produce virus. In some cases marrow transplant was made using baboons and applying this to humans. You know tissues of pigs have been using in the treatment of people who had severe burn damage and it's discussed the use of transgenic animal DNA into humans. The breeding among different species was forbidden in Leviticus for very good reasons. I use AIDS and SARS as an examples of genetic manipulation that actually can wiped out mankind. Yet I don't wanna keep on talking this issue even if you agree or disagree or solicite more info, it's off the main topic.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Alrighty guys-- Hopefully we can jumpstart this discussion! A convo was getting a little off topic and more onto this topic so I thought I'd move it over. I'll paste the whole post and then break it down to reply to it.

dan said>

OK, first off, there's more evidence to support the Bible than to support the theory of evolution. Secondly, there is no tangible evidence of evolution. the only thing that is tangible is the existence of species. Man has not been around long enough to identify evolution. We can see adaptation, but this is a pool of spit next to the ocean. Evolution is and always will remain a theory, as it is physically impossible for man to conclusively prove it to be true. Please don't pawn off your inferences and assumptions as fact.

Another thing about evolution, Darwin never even postulated this theory; a bunch of guys read his book and theorized (based on his theories) that evolution is the way things got started. It's full of holes, and does not account for much of the known living world. The Bible can be proven to be much more accurate than the theory of evolution.

OK, first off, there's more evidence to support the Bible than to support the theory of evolution.

The only evidence for the bible is to be found within the bible itself, but that is circular reasoning and therefore must be ruled out. If you can come up with alternative evidence for the bible, you will have succeeded where countless others have failed in these forums.

Secondly, there is no tangible evidence of evolution. the only thing that is tangible is the existence of species. Man has not been around long enough to identify evolution.

But the earth has been around long enough, and so that's what we use as our reference. We have tangible evidence out the wazoo by way of observation of fossils and erosion.

Evolution is and always will remain a theory, as it is physically impossible for man to conclusively prove it to be true.

Everything is and always will remain a theory-- including your bible. It is physically impossible to conclusively prove anything to be true. To supplement that, we must evaluate our environment objectively and come to the most logical conclusion.

Please don't pawn off your inferences and assumptions as fact.

Alright, but on one condition-- that you don't pawn off your 'deep feelings of your soul' and your bible as fact. Do we have a deal?

Another thing about evolution, Darwin never even postulated this theory; a bunch of guys read his book and theorized (based on his theories) that evolution is the way things got started.

I don't care if my little cousin postulated the theory...it doesn't change anything.

It's full of holes, and does not account for much of the known living world.

If you could name some specific 'holes' and explain how it doesn't account for much of the known living world, that'd be grand.

The Bible can be proven to be much more accurate than the theory of evolution

How do you figure that?

I look forward to your reply!

 

[dan]

If you can come up with alternative evidence for the bible, you will have succeeded where countless others have failed in these forums.

For this I'd like a little clarification. Is archeological evidence that substantiates biblical stories not considered "alternative?" If science is to be the control here, then I'd think it would count, but your dismissal of all evidence leads me to believe that you do not consider that evidence valid. If so then your evidence of evolution falls into the same category. If not, then I will happily proceed.

But the earth has been around long enough, and so that's what we use as our reference. We have tangible evidence out the wazoo by way of observation of fossils and erosion.

That may be, but observation is not tangible, nor are the reasoning and assumptions that put all that observation together to arrive at a conclusion. There are a thousand different conclusions I could arrive at to explain the existence of fossils and erosion, but you hold only one up in the air and declare it to be absolute truth. I'm assuming you're familiar with Descarte's Curse? He reasoned that we might accurately derive the effect if we have the cause, but it is impossible to derive the cause with only the effect, as there are infinite possibilities. Evolution can only be guessed at.

Alright, but on one condition-- that you don't pawn off your 'deep feelings of your soul' and your bible as fact. Do we have a deal?

Deal.

If you could name some specific 'holes' and explain how it doesn't account for much of the known living world, that'd be grand.

Happy to. Evolution fails to account for four things:
1) Life is unique
2) Complex animals appear suddenly
3) Change in the past has been limited
4) Change in the present is limited

1) The odds of a single molecule being formed from carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur (assuming these elements already exist) are pretty intimidating. 1/10 (to the 160th power). For one protein to be created on earth would take 10 (to the 243 power) years. that would require more matter than exists in the whole universe. So, your theory would have to explain away those calculations for anyone to take it seriously (and it does not, it merely says, "well, if it didn't happen, then we wouldn't be here," which is circular reasoning at its best). Also, I'm still waiting to see science create its own protein out of nothing.

2) Based on the fossils and erosion that we have been studying for years, a single creative act is the only way to explain complex organisms that pop up out of nowhere. There are no other links, and there are whole chains missing from these categories, but they are conveniently ignored by evolutionists. In the same groups of fossils as the most basic of organisms we find some more complex animals that are still not understood fully.

3) Since recorded history we have yet to observe a change from one species to another. Has evolution stopped? or is it on a break? No one has ever been able to observe the slightest example of evolution. It only exists on paper.

4) There are no exisitng demostrable leaps from one species to another; in other words, we have one species that we conclude changes into another species, but we do not have the missing link. There is no link connecting ANY TWO SPECIES THAT DOES OR HAS EVER EXISTED. It is all on paper, and no where else.

Quote: › Select ›‹ Expand
The Bible can be proven to be much more accurate than the theory of evolution

How do you figure that?

I await your response to my first inquiry.

I enjoy a rousing debate as much as the next man, but please do not confuse my zeal for disrespect. I, in no way, intend to convey anything less than the utmost respect for you and your opinions. Please forgive me if I get a little aggressive.

 

[Ceridwen018]

dan,

For this I'd like a little clarification. Is archeological evidence that substantiates biblical stories not considered "alternative?" If science is to be the control here, then I'd think it would count, but your dismissal of all evidence leads me to believe that you do not consider that evidence valid. If so then your evidence of evolution falls into the same category. If not, then I will happily proceed.

Archeological evidence is indeed valid, but I guess I am misunderstanding how you are going to prove god's divinity through it.

That may be, but observation is not tangible, nor are the reasoning and assumptions that put all that observation together to arrive at a conclusion.

Fossils are tangible, and the fact that the evidence gained through observation can be plainly observed by anyone makes it tangible.

There are a thousand different conclusions I could arrive at to explain the existence of fossils and erosion,

You might think that, but if that truly were the case I think scientists would have recognized them by now.

I'm assuming you're familiar with Descarte's Curse? He reasoned that we might accurately derive the effect if we have the cause, but it is impossible to derive the cause with only the effect, as there are infinite possibilities. Evolution can only be guessed at.

We have no definate cause, this is true, however we do have steps leading back to it from our effect, which limit our choices immensely.

1) The odds of a single molecule being formed from carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur (assuming these elements already exist) are pretty intimidating. 1/10 (to the 160th power). For one protein to be created on earth would take 10 (to the 243 power) years. that would require more matter than exists in the whole universe. So, your theory would have to explain away those calculations for anyone to take it seriously (and it does not, it merely says, "well, if it didn't happen, then we wouldn't be here," which is circular reasoning at its best). Also, I'm still waiting to see science create its own protein out of nothing.

The odds are indeed intimidating...from a human perspective, that is. The universe, however, is ageless, etc. 1/10 to the 160th power seems outrageous to us mere mortals, but in the reality of the universe its nothing.

We don't even know how big the universe is. How do you propose to know how much matter it contains? Perhaps that is not such a big number after all...

Why does science need to make a protein out of nothing? To prove that the universe could have begun without god? You can accept that god was always just there. Why couldn't proteins have always been just there?

2) Based on the fossils and erosion that we have been studying for years, a single creative act is the only way to explain complex organisms that pop up out of nowhere. There are no other links, and there are whole chains missing from these categories, but they are conveniently ignored by evolutionists. In the same groups of fossils as the most basic of organisms we find some more complex animals that are still not understood fully.

The fact that the chains are missing proves their existence. We will find the answers eventually. You speak as if we are supposed to know everything and have no uncertainties, but that is impossible. We know enough, however, to have created a theory.

Also, do you have a link or something where I could look up info on these complex organisms which are thought to have popped up out of nowhere?

3) Since recorded history we have yet to observe a change from one species to another. Has evolution stopped? or is it on a break? No one has ever been able to observe the slightest example of evolution. It only exists on paper.

Evolution takes millions of years...are you saying that you are expecting someone to witness it within a lifetime?

4) There are no exisitng demostrable leaps from one species to another; in other words, we have one species that we conclude changes into another species, but we do not have the missing link. There is no link connecting ANY TWO SPECIES THAT DOES OR HAS EVER EXISTED. It is all on paper, and no where else.

What about wolves and dogs? Housecats and tigers? Horses and donkeys? We aren't missing any links with those.

I await your response to my first inquiry.

Could you please restate your first inquiry?

I enjoy a rousing debate as much as the next man, but please do not confuse my zeal for disrespect. I, in no way, intend to convey anything less than the utmost respect for you and your opinions. Please forgive me if I get a little aggressive.

I absolutely understand, and can only ask that you could do the same for me!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Dan-- your arguments are good ones--there is still much we have to learn about evolution. However, to say that we do not have a complete, 100%, tangible answer is not the same as admitting that a divine being at various points in natural history suddenly pops an entire species into the equation from nothing. It is called a "filling in the gaps" argument to claim that a lack of scientific knowledge in an area confirms religious convictions.

Although evolution may not explain every single thing about life completely (yet), it is far more plausible than the method by which creationists claim living things appear on earth.....that a divine being simply puts them there all of a sudden, every now and then adding new ones....this violates an immense amount of established scientific knowledge--even laws as basic as thermodynamics (matter cannot be created), among many other things.

Another bit of established science that creationsim violates: that all (complex) living things have living parents (complex organisms do not come from supernatural dust, a pile of dirt, God, Allah, or otherwise). I doubt many scientists of repute believe that a Rhino can come from anything other than living parents--Rhinos do not pop out of nowhere by an act of God, Allah, or whoever.

My point? For as many problems as there may be with evolution, there are many more with creationism. The only good arguments I have heard from creationists are ones pointing out that we do not know everything there is to know about the history of life on Earth--I completely agree. But the most important premise, the one that's really being disputed is: can a species literally "appear" all of a sudden on earth as an act of the divine? A lot of evidence suggests the answer is no--there is a natural explaination for it other than just chalking it up to heveanly intervention/miracles.

Perhaps we haven't witnessed much evolution....on the other hand, we haven't witnessed a whole new species consisting of millions of animals suddenly "appear" as the result of the divine, either.

 

[painted wolf]

3) Since recorded history we have yet to observe a change from one species to another. Has evolution stopped? or is it on a break? No one has ever been able to observe the slightest example of evolution. It only exists on paper.

actually, there have been experiments/obervatons that show evolution in action. For instance:

>>"The results of the experiment echo observations made in the 1980s of one species of Finch on one Galapagos island. Over a ten year period there were three major swings in the ecosystem of the island. At the start of the observation period, there were two morphs of the Finch, a large beaked morph and a small beaked morph. One change in the ecosystem favored the large beaked morph over the small beaked morph, with the latter nearly becoming extinct. A second change in the ecosystem favored the now nearly extinct small beaked morph, and within a short time it was the dominant morph, with the large beaked morph on its way to extinction. Finally, the ecosystem shifted again, and populations stabilized. Today, a third morph has appeared, with a beak intermediate between the large and small beaked morphs. Over a ten year period, three natural selection events occurred, suggesting that evolutionary change might be more rapid than ever before suspected."<<

exerpt from : http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html

another artical on the fast (and measurable) rate of evolution, this time in mice: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000469CF-EC10-1ECB-8E1C809EC588EF21

For more evidence of evolution you only have to look at viruses and bacteria... they evolve at a terrifically fast rate, hence some of the problems with AIDS and the new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Look at SARS, it evolved from a purely avian virus to a human compatable virus in just a few years and now its a major problem, why? Because at the rate viruses mutate and evolve it may soon deveop into a newer and more virulent form. The same goes for AIDS wich was origionally SIDS and jumped from apes to humans and has been changing and spreading ever sence. (There are 2 forms of HIV that have evolved to live in humans, one of wich usually causes AIDS)
And now we have the 'foamy virus' that so far seems to be benigne wich jumped from apes to humans just this year.
some links about foamy virus (SIV): http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2004/03/19/virus_simian040319
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3520968.stm

2) Based on the fossils and erosion that we have been studying for years, a single creative act is the only way to explain complex organisms that pop up out of nowhere. There are no other links, and there are whole chains missing from these categories, but they are conveniently ignored by evolutionists. In the same groups of fossils as the most basic of organisms we find some more complex animals that are still not understood fully.

looks like the sudden apearance of complex organisms isn't that sudden. New fossils have been described that push complex organisms back 580-550 million years. They are one more piece of the increasingly filled in puzzel.
check out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3776853.stm
http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/14/content_339137.htm

I too like a good discussion 8)

wa:do

 

[dan]

The results of the experiment echo observations made in the 1980s of one species of Finch on one Galapagos island. Over a ten year period there were three major swings in the ecosystem of the island. At the start of the observation period, there were two morphs of the Finch, a large beaked morph and a small beaked morph. One change in the ecosystem favored the large beaked morph over the small beaked morph, with the latter nearly becoming extinct. A second change in the ecosystem favored the now nearly extinct small beaked morph, and within a short time it was the dominant morph, with the large beaked morph on its way to extinction. Finally, the ecosystem shifted again, and populations stabilized. Today, a third morph has appeared, with a beak intermediate between the large and small beaked morphs. Over a ten year period, three natural selection events occurred, suggesting that evolutionary change might be more rapid than ever before suspected.

This is called adaptation, not evolution, and I already said this was visible (while actual evolution is not). The rest of your statements are only about adaptation. I've already said this is visible, but it is not evolution. Evolution literally means change, so if we define it narrowly it is fact, as all things change. You can't step into the same river twice (or even once ), but the change from species to species is what I am targeting, and there is no proof of this, only conjecture and inference. Once again, Darwin described natural selection, not evolution. He made the jump from A to B and you are making the jump from C to T without so much as a reason.

On to Mr_Sprinkles-

Although evolution may not explain every single thing about life completely (yet), it is far more plausible than the method by which creationists claim living things appear on earth.....that a divine being simply puts them there all of a sudden, every now and then adding new ones....this violates an immense amount of established scientific knowledge--even laws as basic as thermodynamics (matter cannot be created), among many other things.

I never said things were created from nothing. I know matter and energy cannot be created. The idea that I would believe that God creates out of nothing is an assumption based on what mainstream Christianity thinks; but mainstream Christianity is about as far from truth as the earth is from the sky. The Hebrew word for create is "bara," which means to shape or fashion. It denotes a change in the state of matter that already exists.

My point? For as many problems as there may be with evolution, there are many more with creationism.

Not so. You would be more accurate if you said "there are many more with the commonly accepted view of creationism," but that is not truth, that is popular religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Dan--please forgive me for assuming you agreed with the mainstream Christian view of Creationism. Could you please give us your views on Creationism?

 

[dan]

Gladly. I believe that God adheres to physical laws at all times. He set them, so why would He have to break them? When He appears to break them, such as when Christ walked on water, He is merely compllying with a higher law of which we have no knowledge. We know gravity is universal, but we can make things appear to "defy" gravity. Without knowledge of other laws it would appear we are breaking the law of gravity. Thus it is with the Lord.

We can extend this to creationism. God didn't just snap His fingers and create a universe, the matter was there, in an unorganized state. He organized it into worlds and set everything in motion. How long it ook Him, I don't know; the Hebrew word translated "day" denotes an indeterminate amount of time. It could be a day, it could be a thousand years, it could be a billion, I don't know.

What I do know is that Adam and Eve were the pinnacle of this creationary period. They were not brought about by eons of adaptation and evolution. I don't know if you consider yourself an atheist or a Christian, or what, but some try to reconcile the Bible with evolutionism, which is impossible. With evolution there is death from the very beginning, and the fall of Adam become unecessary. If the Bible is correct, then evolution cannot be (as far as humans are concerned). I do not doubt that animals have, through the ages, adapted themselves to environments in an effort to stay alive, but shifts from one species to another are only theories, no one has been able to show this conclusively.

Man was made up of two distinct "bodies." He is the union of spirit and a material body. The spirit is immortal, the body, mortal. The spirit is what gives it the spark of life that science has yet to isolate and reproduce. I find it ironic that we can put a man on the moon, we can see 10 billion light years into space and we can see the bottom of the ocean, but science will never, ever be able to mimic life. It is utterly and completely a mystery, but each and every one of us has the power to create life within us. Can you imagine a more divine investiture of power? We can create life. It's nothing less than the very power of God, and man will never be able to fake it in a laboratory. It is completely unique.

When Adam fell, a new substance entered the world, blood. Blood gives us life, but it is mortal life. With this new "life" comes death. For the Hebrews the blood of man and beast was sacred (it held the life of the soul). The Bible refers to humans as "flesh and blood," but in two instances it says, "flesh and bone." These to instances are when it refers to a body not quickened by blood, but by spirit: the resurrected Christ, and Addam and Eve, prior to the fall.

The existence of dinosaurs in no way cancels out the reality of creationism. God created many, many creatures, and He has crfeated many worlds. "Worlds without number" I believe it says in the Bible. It all fits perfectly if one but takes the time to consider it seriously.

 

[YawgmothsAvatar]

Since I haven't been following this thread since its beginning, could someone please list the unanswered arguments against evolution? I am on vacation and wandering through a maze of quotes isn't my idea of fun. :goodjob:

 

[Ceridwen018]

dan,

Gladly. I believe that God adheres to physical laws at all times. He set them, so why would He have to break them?

If god is all-powerful, he certainly doesn't have to do anything, but is it truly necessary for him to obey his own rules? Do people authority usually follow the same rules as those they set for their subordinates? Not really.

When He appears to break them, such as when Christ walked on water, He is merely compllying with a higher law of which we have no knowledge.

The cohesive properties of water have been analyzed extensively-- I think it's safe to say that if water had the capabilities of being walked on, we'd know about it. I do think you've got a good idea in this one, but it's going to be difficult to back up.

We know gravity is universal, but we can make things appear to "defy" gravity. Without knowledge of other laws it would appear we are breaking the law of gravity. Thus it is with the Lord.

I suppose, but do you not think it is possible for god to have simply manipulated his own law and made the water temporarily able to be walked upon? If you hold to this idea, then what you are basically saying is that all of Jesus' miracles (not to mention present-day miracles) are explainable through science. I couldn't agree with you more, however, it does undermine god's power and authorship in the miracle...

We can extend this to creationism. God didn't just snap His fingers and create a universe, the matter was there, in an unorganized state. He organized it into worlds and set everything in motion. How long it ook Him, I don't know; the Hebrew word translated "day" denotes an indeterminate amount of time. It could be a day, it could be a thousand years, it could be a billion, I don't know.

This is good thinking. Our beliefs are really not that far separated: I believe the earth began through natural processes which began as a result of a neverending natural pattern, and you believe that the earth began through natural processes which god instigated.

What I do know is that Adam and Eve were the pinnacle of this creationary period. They were not brought about by eons of adaptation and evolution. I don't know if you consider yourself an atheist or a Christian, or what, but some try to reconcile the Bible with evolutionism, which is impossible.

I agree that evolution and the bible cannot be reconciled. I have a question for you though--do you take the bible literally?

The spirit is what gives it the spark of life that science has yet to isolate and reproduce.

Not only that, but science has yet to discover any trace of it at all. How are you sure that this 'spirit' or 'soul' is real with no evidence to support it?

I find it ironic that we can put a man on the moon, we can see 10 billion light years into space and we can see the bottom of the ocean, but science will never, ever be able to mimic life.

It's nothing less than the very power of God, and man will never be able to fake it in a laboratory. It is completely unique.

I wouldn't say that. The body is probably one of the most complex things on this earth, but 'never' is a strong word. We already make artificial organs and body parts in labs. It's only a matter of time...

The brain, of course, would be the biggest challenge of all. This sounds like a job for "Abby Normal"...

Seriously though, we're learning more about the brain, DNA, etc. We already have rudimentary artificial intelligence. We'll get there someday.

but each and every one of us has the power to create life within us.

For some reason, I'm not getting the feeling that you're talking about procreation here, or am I wrong? If this quote is supposed to imply something metaphysical, could you please elaborate?

The existence of dinosaurs in no way cancels out the reality of creationism. God created many, many creatures, and He has crfeated many worlds. "Worlds without number" I believe it says in the Bible.

Oh, so you do believe in creationism? Mr. Spinkles is throwing me off I think.

It all fits perfectly if one but takes the time to consider it seriously.

Of course it does. It was invented to fit.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

YawgmothsAvatar-- here are the arguments Dan put forth against evolution.

Evolution fails to account for four things:
1) Life is unique
2) Complex animals appear suddenly
3) Change in the past has been limited
4) Change in the present is limited

1) The odds of a single molecule being formed from carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur (assuming these elements already exist) are pretty intimidating. 1/10 (to the 160th power). For one protein to be created on earth would take 10 (to the 243 power) years. that would require more matter than exists in the whole universe. So, your theory would have to explain away those calculations for anyone to take it seriously (and it does not, it merely says, "well, if it didn't happen, then we wouldn't be here," which is circular reasoning at its best). Also, I'm still waiting to see science create its own protein out of nothing.

2) Based on the fossils and erosion that we have been studying for years, a single creative act is the only way to explain complex organisms that pop up out of nowhere. There are no other links, and there are whole chains missing from these categories, but they are conveniently ignored by evolutionists. In the same groups of fossils as the most basic of organisms we find some more complex animals that are still not understood fully.

3) Since recorded history we have yet to observe a change from one species to another. Has evolution stopped? or is it on a break? No one has ever been able to observe the slightest example of evolution. It only exists on paper.

4) There are no exisitng demostrable leaps from one species to another; in other words, we have one species that we conclude changes into another species, but we do not have the missing link. There is no link connecting ANY TWO SPECIES THAT DOES OR HAS EVER EXISTED. It is all on paper, and no where else.

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Evolution is not 100% right, but it's on the right track. I believe in evolution and God, and evolution makes sense to me when there's God behind it.

 

[UberKinder]

Hello all,

This is quite a liveley thread , well leap before you look i say :

dan you said that evolution negates a need for the fall of man , and as a staunch student of evolution I say it doesn't


allowing that the bible cannot be accurately translated into english or any other modern language , I think it has to be seen as a grand work of pseudo- history : following the Hebrew peoples as they strived to make a kingdom for themselves a homeland, and the comming of the messiah that would rule over itall

The historical points are obvious since any one can go to places like bethlehem or egypt or where have you and meet the people decended from the people written about so many years ago. The Pseudo part is the parts like Abrams wrestling of GOD , the pillar of Flame that guided the Tribe of Israel through the Wilderness during the 40 years , or christ's resurection ( personally i like my martyrs dead , and staying dead since if they aren't dead tehy can't be martyrs , c'mon what kind of sacrafice is it if when you die for all our sins you are brought back to life ? Your death is negated , so is your sacrafice ) and yes if anyone so desires i am more than willing to start and persue this topic with a new thread, but i digress.


The point is the bible tells us the plight of these people and trys to give us examples , fables like aesops , that help us to understand why these people were able to go through it all.

The story of teh fall is in my opinion written to explain why life is such a beyatch.

What does evolution have to do with this? Well, through teh application of the principles of evolution it has been shown that all humans can be traced back to one small core of individuals , namely a hand full of women who are the probverbial eve(s) for all of mankind . It is also known that about the time that these women were alive man had made the social leap from hunter gatherer to organised , spescialled , "city " dwellers ... is it not ironic that when you loook at the chronology of Adam there are only a hand full of them that didn't build cities...

imagine:: you are living in the prehistoric ,you are just as intellegent as you are now - you have to work your fingers to the bone just to eat , you have crappy tools and little knowledge of farming , childbirth kills , the beasts of the earth can at times hunt you... goodness forbid a snake bite , with no true medice teh poison is sure to kill... \

Moral is obviously low the theocracy ( theocrazy) need to explain why life sux and keeps man docile enough to continue with the daily grind . The concept of sin , evil , and blasphemy were the first tools ( control is always first implemented then explained - if you doubt it then get arrested in america) - then the story of the fall to bind it all together ... your "parents" screwed it for all of us , espescially those women -see how much pain they have to go through :must've pissed god off reall good , life sux because you can think for yourself , so just don't; do as we say and you can get a better life once dead , now work and be merry .

I understand that for the most part my post is anthropology, sociology and psychology , but it all starts thanks to the immutable fact that we can trace our evolution entirely from ape to homo sapien sapien. The fall is a neccessary part of the faith, it is their reason that life was full of hardships . this concept isnt contested by evolution at all but gives it atleast some validity since it explains why anyone would buy into it .

 

[Ceridwen018]

UberKinder, I like the way you think!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

UberKinder, you have a very unique and fascinating perspective. The points you raise in your post are very interesting.

I would like to say one thing about evolution and God: evolution does not, in any way, disprove the existence of God (why so many people think this, I do not know). That would be like saying that gravity disproves the existence of God--most theists agree that God causes gravity, which causes things to fall down. Plenty of theists have already say "hey, maybe God caused evolution, which caused Man".

It would have been very sad indeed if we had continued our ancient thinking that the gods cause thunder and lightning, and never tried to figure out scientifically "how" the gods cause thunder and lightning.....I do not think there is any necessary conflict between evolution and God. It really is comparable to a bunch of religious people trying to disprove gravity as a theory with no true evidence to back it up, simply because God causes things to fall down--not gravity.