Atheism Rules !

Jump to Last Post 201-250 of 666 discussions (1781 posts)
  1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 16 years ago

    Sandra I liked it, but missed how that had anything to do with this thread?
    tongue

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      It didn't, thats why I said it was a intersession.  smile

  2. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    LOL

    Well - I guess that's why I don't understand the question  - why didn't I think of that ?

  3. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Well, that's the point I was trying to make I guess. There is a big difference between God using you - and the church using you.

    I have a feeling that Jesus would be turning in his grave (if he had one) to see the use he has been made of big_smile

  4. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Now, that's what is known in the trade as a pre-emptive strike big_smile

  5. gamergirl profile image84
    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    Whee evilution.. oh wait.. evOlution.  *giggle*

  6. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 16 years ago

    Reading the various comments about evolution on this Forum, it seems evident to me that what a lot of people fail to grasp is that evolution by natural selection is *cumulative*.

    Nothing *suddenly* changes into something else. No creature "jumps" into becoming another. Small improvements are added bit by bit, often over incredibly long periods of time. The process is slow, gradual and cumulative, and usually takes place over hundreds, if not thousands, of generations.

    It's also worth pointing out that this process is not predictive or intentional: no one "knows" that one organism is gradually evolving into another.

    Evolution by natural selection is simply (?) the process of organisms struggling to survive and, as a natural result of that survival, to reproduce.

    1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
      WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Thom, I realize now that using the term "jump" is faulty and misleading.  I pictured this evolutionary 'jump' from one species to another (for example) as a sort of slow-mo, millions-of-years kind of jump!  Maybe a better word to use would be transform or change.

      I've never heard anyone say that before.  Is this similar to a sort of "secret evolution?"  Are you suggesting that there might be links amongst us that we're unaware of?

      Oh and Sandra, I think the pastor comments were directed to me?  Regardless, I took them in!

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        yes it was for you, glad you took them in.  smile

      2. Thom Carnes profile image60
        Thom Carnesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        All I mean when I say that evolution is not "predictive" is that the process is not being directed or manipulated by anyone or anything, in the way that rare animal breeders might "select" certain desirable traits in order to preserve and perpetuate them.

        The evolutionary process is entirely unconscious or "blind" (to quote Richard Dawkins): no one is anticipating or predicting the end result. No one knows.

        And isn't it interesting how all discussions/ debates about atheism/ the existence of God/ etc. always seem to end up as discussions about evolution!

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          You put it much better than I did.

          The reason these discussions end up in a battle over evolution is that it would seem certain christian sects feel this disproves the existence of god for some reason.

          WC - looking forward to it.

        2. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
          Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Why is that?

          Who did bring this up?  Really, I don't remember?

  7. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    That's true. Although I am keen to hear wedding consultant's theories as to where the dinosaurs went. He definitely had an interesting thought about water speeding up the process of fossil and fossil fuel creation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKb1LXxKNHY

    This video is a good explanation of the evolutionary process. But I am a little scared at some of the Creation "Scientists," replies LOL And this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCLi7c1NRWc

  8. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
    Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years ago

    Thank you, Sandra.  I do not believe my calling is as a pastor, although I am flattered that you mention that.

    I do believe your advice, however, is good advice for any pastor to follow.  I would encourage them to do the same.
    big_smile

  9. gamergirl profile image84
    gamergirlposted 15 years ago

    Peter, I got mail yesterday and was very confused about it until I remembered your last email.  Bless you!

    I thought I'd make a dive into this thread with a serious little tidbit-

    Did you know you *evolve* daily?  Not breaking out the dictionary here, but as we, both societally speaking and personally speaking, change and are not 100% the same as we were before, on a DAILY basis!  The change, or adaptation to our own environments is not just physical.  There are mental, emotional, and spiritual changes which happen -every.single.day- and though they may be very small, over years and decades they amount to a whole lot of change.

    We can apply this constant momentum to every facet of _existence_, the world, galaxy and universe, and all points within and between.  Change is coming, be it big or small.  Evolution is not arguable, it just happens, and is not simply restricted to physical adaptations in changed environments.

    I mean, even in the time it took you to read my comma-ridden message you have evolved, just the barest tiniest little bit.

  10. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
    Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years ago

    You are very welcome GG.  It is quite an amazing little book.  I know of some remarkable testimonies, my wife's included.

    I feel more evolved as we speak...ah, I mean write.

  11. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    that's interesting you said that gamegirl.  My brother like to tell me all the time, that we are constantly replacing our skins, every second, every moment, every hour etc.  That physically our bodies are replacing our old skin for new skin.  I love thoughts like, every thought we have, never disapears, everything we have ever seen, thought, spoken, smelled etc, is all stored in the same place.  Maybe like our minds have just as much space to it as the universe itself.

  12. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

    Jenny (inspire pub), if I'm over-simplifying your response, just yell at me, okay?

    Here is my take on all the species you mentioned (and those that have yet to be found out as we might not recognize them as links between species, Thom):

    What if a Designer created all those things just the way they are?  That was my previous comment when discussing this with Mark earlier on in the thread.  Yes the might seem to serve as evidence of millions of years of evolving into what they are, but what if they're just the way God created them?


    Jenny, that's a good point.  And here's where things might get tricky.  I say they're tricky because millions of people over the years have disagreed over this point I'll bring up.  These people have even fought wars to defend their opinions and beliefs.

    Watching the first video that Mark brought up helped me put words to what I was trying to express earlier.  I don't think we can deny micro-evolution exists today.  Just as was previously discussed, strands of viruses and bacterial infections have transformed to be stronger and more resilient to the affects of antibiotics and antibacterials.  I think it was the "staff infection" recently that made the news about becoming more resilient due to the overuse of antibacterial soap.

    So I would agree with gamergirl and sandra (since she just posted something as I was typing this!) that we are 'evolving' (or changing or transforming) every day.  We're adapting to environmental changes, be they different climates, emotional experiences, etc.  If not, we would be robots, then, right?  We all agree that we're not robots (I hope!).

    SO, here's the hard-to-grasp, viciously-fought-over point: God gives us free will.  Think of that on the evolutionary stage, and bear with me here.  Let's pretend for a moment that he created the universe however he did 6,000 years ago, okay?  Well, since he allowed us free will, we're able to do whatever we want, within our physical limitations.  We can eat, we can sleep, we can kill, we can have affairs.  He doesn't prevent us from doing this.  Likewise, God doesn't prevent us from evolving/changing everyday.  This is also true of the animal kingdom.  Birds, trees, fish, etc. can all evolve and change just as humans can.  God isn't the "Great Puppeteer" doing everything for us.  He allows change to occur.  And I think that points to his love for us; he doesn't control us and allows us to do the things we'd like to do or the things we think we'd like to do, and so on.

    So Jenny, to get back to your question, I don't know what the earth was like pre-flood and post-flood.  But I'd disagree with the notion that these supposed missing-link creatures serve as evidence of a billion year evolutionary process.  I agree that we can create a different breed of dog by mix-breeding different types, but they're still dogs.  Likewise, a flying squirrel was and still is categorized as a squirrel.  (I secretly wonder if a bird/bat bred with a squirrel! haha).  Maybe people (in general) just need to expand their categories of animals/plants/insects/etc.  Maybe there needs to be more named families of species.  But I will say this- if there were half-species (seeming mix between two, separate species) in existence pre-flood then there would be fossils, so I would say that they weren't around!

    Hey, good point! I was going to bring that up as an example, but you beat me to it!

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It's hard to grasp because it doesn't make any sense smile Animals do not evolve because they have free will. They are driven as a species to survive and propagate from the strongest members of that species - Try it - stop evolving right now  LOL  Or conversely - evolve - right now big_smile

      And as I understand the time line according to the scientific evidence available - it takes a lot longer than 6,000 years to see the sort of differences you are talking about.

      But you seem to be saying that all the examples that Jenny gave are not actually evolved from the same starting point. They were all here already when the earth was created 6,000 years ago - is that right?

      And this sort of contradicts the idea of a young earth:



      big_smile

      1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
        WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Let me have a point of clarification because most evolutionists call humans "animals."  Is that what you're doing here?  Because initially you said animals don't evolve because they have free will...and then it seemed like you made a shift into saying that we (as humans) cannot start or stop evolving.  Are you grouping animals and humans together, or is there a differentiation there?  I'll ask that for clarification before I respond...

        For the record, I wasn't grouping them together.  Whenever I said "animals" I meant monkeys, cats, etc, but I was implying humans are not animals.  I suppose I should have clarified that first.

          Yes that's what I'm saying.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          OK - What I meant by that is that we (and all the other animals, plants) do not evolve because we have free will - we evolve because we have no choice individually in the matter. All animals. Including humans. I personally have no free will to choose to evolve or not - neither do you. As a species we have evolved and are continuing to evolve. And I don't want to muddy the waters with personal development as in making myself a better person by listening to my feminine side as being evolving big_smile

          So - you do not believe that animals evolve - is that correct? Because this contradicts your statement that God gives us the free will to evolve if we choose to do so.

          Never happened as far as you are concerned. No evolving going on?

          And if you can win this argument - you will be the best creationist pastor on the planet. big_smile

          Edit - yes I consider myself to be an animal. When we are done with this argument I will find some decent bible references to animal instincts and bestial behavior smile Then we can start a new one .

  13. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    oh geez!  We came from primordial goo. LOL. 
    We came from the water...we evolved to land animals.  We probabaly started out as dinosaurs, LOL, that were human like but with reptile skin and terrified of the big dinosaurs so we hung out in caves, and then this big meteor hit and all the dinosaurs were wipped out, and then umm....the our ancestors came out of the caves and at up the missing animals and stuff, and then umm...it got cold cause the meteore caused the sun to be eclipsed and then it the ice age started, and then our ancestors starting growing hair to keep warm and then looked like apes and stuff, and then....umm.....the Earth started to warm up again, and they gradually started to lose their hair cause it was hotter, and then, there was this gigantic Earthquake and it tore the land apart, and then all the animals and us/people started to adapt to the new environments, and then some came out of the water and then some went back in the water and then some just disapeared because there was no use for them anymore. 
    And then one day, someone said, what happen to the velosomonekyflyingraptorasaurus, and our ancestors said: we ate them all. LOL.

  14. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

    Okay so you group us in with animals.  That was just for my clarification...

    Maybe we need another point of clarification concerning evolution- because your example of "getting in touch with your feminine side" could be interpreted as an example of you adapting and evolving.  Maybe your outtake on life would evolve; maybe your emotions would change; maybe the chemicals in your brain would transform so as to adapt to your newfound beliefs concerning feminism.  That was a choice of yours, though, correct?  You chose to (for example) become more feminine, and subsequently your body evolved as a result.

    But that's not the evolution you're talking about, I suspect.

    (Oh I just got your edit, which confirms my first sentence...got it.  Oh and if you need biblical references to humans acting as animals, there are plenty out there.)

    No, I do not believe that animals (including us) evolve from one species into another.  Going back to what I said to Jenny, I think the animals in existence today were created as what they are today.  YES, they changed over the years to adapt to different climates, predators and so on.  But no, I don't believe they evolved gills and began breathing under water simply because it was necessary for survival.  My argument is this: those animals that are capable of doing such things were created to do that from the beginning smile

    And I brought up the free will point to illustrate that we aren't puppets held up by divine strings.  It was little more.  And here's a secret: at the core of the Presbyterian church is the belief in predestination- the belief that God controls everything and that there is no free will.  This belief is primarily based off of a passage in the New Testament that has been misconstrued.  But that brings us back to this division in the church argument and that horse has already been beaten...

    Hey and what happened to our discussion of the flood?

  15. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Well, I think we need to clear up what we are talking about when we use the word evolving. There have been quite a few posts on the meaning of the word, and it's fair to say that in this context, becoming a better person as an individual has nothing to do with the theory of evolution as we are using it here. I personally cannot evolve in this context,. No animal can. I cannot change my DNA makeup and make myself run faster to avoid a predator.

    And I have to say you seem to be contradicting yourself here. I will give an example:

    You say that animals can adapt and change to deal with a changing environment or to escape predators but only up to a point. And you know what that point is.

    Also, you seem to believe that dinosaurs existed - is that correct - or do you deny their existence?

  16. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    poking about, had one comment for wedding consultant ---No, I do not believe that animals (including us) evolve from one species into another.----

    your right, we didn't evolve from on species into another, think of it as breeds, we are another breed of the same animal, the animal qualities that we have are the same as other animals, eat, sleep, reproduce.  Freud would call it the Id, it, and ego.  The human species, genus and phylum.  Our species, while still human, evolved in our physical brain functioning, where animals did not.  Like the size of a dinosaur brain, is like a pee, yet our brains, ( look through the evolution of the human species ) our brains grew, physically larger etc. 
    Evolution doesn't suggest that we started off as donkeys and became humans.  The emphisis on our ancestor apes, is because we have a lot of same qualities, but an ape is still an ape, because it's brain function didn't evolve, and with the changes in the brain it also causes changes in our bodies.

    ie:  homosapiens, and apes, the homosapien ( breed ) fuctioned with the brain, and stood up, lets say to grab an apple from the tree, and found that we did not have a need to swing from tree to tree, yet the apes as they are now today, still swing, because (natural selection) would say that they never developed the same functions, that voice, that reached out and said, stand up.  Get it?   ( I put a little God in there for ya ) think about it.  smile

  17. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

    I do believe dinosaurs existed, yes, but I'm missing the contradictions?

    Are you saying this is my contradiction?

    I think a better way to sort through this is defining what it means for anything to 'evolve.'  In fact, I'll put that up as a challenge!  Since this is a thread on why atheism rules, then I challenge those atheists who believe in evolution to step up and define animal evolution!

    Then I think we can sort through the rest...including where you say I contradict myself.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The theory of evolution and Darwinian natural selection have been heavily linked to and explained in this thread.

      But the contradiction is that you say animals can change or adapt to cope with climate change or as a way of avoiding a predator - but  there are limits to this process and you know what these limits are. They couldn't, for instance develop the ability to fly as the flying squirrel has done. And you know the limits of the change they can undergo?

      Seems like a contradiction to me.

      1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
        WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I should state that I don't know what these limitations are and I don't pretend to.  I am just explaining my interpretation of what I see.  Yes, animals change and adapt to cope with challenges, and the limits to this process are embedded in their DNA.  This is the point I'm making- animals don't evolve into different species over the years, whether over millions of years or not.  Can they cross-breed?  Sure!  God doesn't control every little thing in the universe.  God is "in control" but that doesn't mean he's always controlling everything.  So, yes animals can breed with other animals and create different types of animals, but they'll never produce an insect.  Nor will an insect produce them.  Nor will an earthworm evolve into a mammoth, no matter how many millions of years pass by.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          OK - here is the contradiction:

          "I don't know what these limitations are and I don't pretend to."

          "Nor will an earthworm evolve into a mammoth, no matter how many millions of years pass by."

          First you say you don't know the limits, then you say what is the limit.

          And no one anywhere has said that 2 animals can breed and produce an insect. I am not sure why you keep going back to this sort of thing. What makes you think that 2 animals that are not insects,  bred and produced an insect?

          But, if billions of single celled organisms interbred over billions of years, an insect and a mammal could eventually come out of that DNA pool. You would agree that all living beings share a common DNA resource? Yes?

          What gives you the idea that evolution is 2 animals from different species breeding and producing an entirely new species overnight? As this seems to be what you think of as the theory of evolution?

          Or am I mis-understanding what you think of as evolution?

          1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
            WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            warning this will be long!

            The clarification I would suggest is this: I'm only offering my opinions, as are others here.  My opinion is that an earthworm could not evolve into a mammoth over millions of years, for example.  But essentially I'm conceding the fact that I don't know the limitations of evolution.  This is going back to my comment that the term "evolution" here really needs to be defined.  You see, I don't know the limitations of animals adapting and evolving to be smarter than their predators, environmental changes, and so forth.  But I wouldn't say (here's my opinion again) that animals have not evolved so much so as to change species.


            I wasn't implying others (who believe in evolution) were suggesting that two animals breeding and making an insect = evolution.  I think that notion is ridiculous.  I was offering that as an example of how cross-bred species come about.  It's not because of some evolutionary change in the fiber of what makes them what they are.  Some have come from cross breeding of the same or similar species.

            All living things have DNA, yes.


            No not at all.  In fact, Mark, I've clicked on every link you've offered and read and watched the videos therein.  I'm not suggesting at all that evolution = two animals breeding and creating a new species overnight.  Forgive me for the "quick and short" version of my take on evolution, but here's how I interpret it:

            Earth is 4+ billion years old
            All living things in existence today evolved from a single-cell organism
            The strongest and fittest of those evolved creatures continued to survive and strive over millions of years and became what we see today

            Feel free to correct any of that, but that's my broad stroke interpretation of evolution.

            Here's a thought I'll bring up.  From where did that original single, cell originate?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              All right ! -  Jenny, I am sure, will do a much better job of explaining, but I will have a go here.

              The only thing I can see as a problem with your definition is "from a single cell organism." If we change that to billions and billions of single cell organisms, that's more accurate, I think.

              As to the question, this is where I would suggest that you should say, "God did it." Rather than trying to prove evolution doesn't happen. I personally subscribe to the view that abiogenesis occurred around 4.4 billion years ago when water vapor first liquefied.

              This is the wikipedia entry regarding this:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

              But, as no one was actually there, I can concede that this is a theory rather than a proven fact. But this theory is postulated from a number of scientific discoveries rather than starting from a belief that this happened because that's what they believe. No one has yet managed to re-create the occurrence, although they are trying.

              Al least we have a better definition of evolution to work from. No one is saying that species mate with other species and create new ones.

              So, what makes you think that this doesn't and isn't happening - given the fact that you admit you do not know the limits of this process, and there is clear evidence of animals that existed earlier, yet no longer exist, having been replaced by "better," versions. 

              Why couldn't God have made this happen?

              Tag

              1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
                WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Is this consistent with main-stream evolution theorists?  I was under the impression evolution began with one, single celled organism.


                That's where theistic evolutionists stand.  The point, they would say, is that evolution has occurred over millions of years, but that God invented/created evolution.  The previous president of Messiah College (where I got my undergrad degree) took this stance, in fact, much to my surprise.
                My simple (and abused/overused by many Christians) answer would be the Bible.  But now you're getting into a previously opened can of worms! haha

                Do I take every Bible passage literally?  Absolutely not!  Was the author of Genesis (possibly Moses) striving for historical accuracy?  I don't think he was.  Does that mean it's all inaccurate?  I don't believe so.  Do you want this to be the longest thread on hubpages?  Then ask me to flesh all of this out on here...(which I don't have time to do)!

                Trust me, if you want some seemingly inaccurate (or sexually explicit or violent or seemingly contradictory, etc) passages of scripture, I've found plenty of them!  But it doesn't mean I should negate the Bible.  Nor should I cut-and-paste the Bible (As Thomas Jefferson did, if I remember correctly).  Interpreting the Bible can be a tricky thing (now DUH, right?), hence the different versions, wars, denominations, branches...

                On a side note, though, I think it would be a great to have a forum thread that wrestles with these troublesome passages...

                In fact, didn't you write about that Mark, some 10+ pages ago?  I seem to remember someone posting a bunch of Bible passages...

                1. Inspirepub profile image72
                  Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  No, evolution did not begin with a complete single-celled organism appearing from nowhere.

                  It began with carbon chains.

                  Each carbon atom, for excellent geometric and electrical reasons, can bond with up to four other atoms.

                  If you imagine a string of carbon atoms, each "holding hands" with two neighbors, then each will still have two "empty" hands, which can then attach to atoms of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and so on.

                  For example, ethanol (alcohol) is two carbon atoms, one of which links to an oxygen atom. This leaves six carbon "hands" and also one oxygen "hand" (because oxygen can bond with two other atoms) to be filled with hydrogen atoms.

                  Carbon chains can form a circle and "join hands" in a ring. Six carbons in a ring, with hydrogen on all the other "hands", is called benzene.

                  Proteins are carbon chains with nitrogen as well as oxygen and hydrogen in them.

                  The carbon chain compounds roiled around in the primordial ocean, forming, breaking up, and reforming, for billion of years.

                  Carbon chains can be very long and complex.

                  At some point, whether by Divine Design or Cosmic Coincidence, a cute little fragment if carbon chain collided with a longer carbon chain.

                  From now on, we are going to call the cute little one RNA, and the longer one DNA, although at this time remember the DNA was naked, floating in primordial soup, not safely encased in any organism, and there were many. many varieties of it, most of which never got to develop into animals.

                  Now, the funny thing that happened when RNA met DNA was that the electrochemical reaction between the two resulted in RNA rolling up along the length of the DNA strand, atom by atom, losing its bits and pieces and grabbing more from the rich chemical soup as it went, and in this one, fateful meeting, it so happened that this particular RNA was exactly the right shape that the bits it "lost" as it rolled up the DNA strand were an exact match for the original DNA strand itself!

                  Picture the way a zipper splits into two ... kinda like that except each half of the zipper was a complete copy of the zipper.

                  So now we have reproduction.

                  But the RNA is still there, and now there are two identical DNA strands, and sooner or later the RNA bumps into one of the DNA strands again and whammo, another duplicate!

                  Now, note that this is ASEXUAL reproduction - each time, the two new DNA strands are identical.

                  But as the soup gets more and more full of replicating DNA strands, other non-replicating forms of carbon chain become less common - they are being "eaten" by the ravenous reproducing RNA/DNA combos.

                  But certain types of carbon chain are harder to "eat", because of their structure. And certain DNA strands are vulnerable to being "eaten" by the RNA of other DNA strands.

                  Natural selection is already in play - BEFORE there are single-celled organisms.

                  The DNA strand with the bit extra on the end survives to bump into its own type of RNA more often than the DNA strand without the "armor" on the end, because it can have a bit "eaten" by the other types of RNA without losing its core structure.

                  Over time, those few spare spare atoms become a whole protective membrane - and it is a breakthrough moment for life on earth when a membrane wraps on itself, trapping RNA and DNA inside it. Protected by the membrane, the RNA happily chews through all the raw materials, making more of its type of DNA, unmolested by other types of RNA.

                  But this is a dead end, unless there is a way to get more raw materials. So the totally impervious membranes are stalled in the reproductive success, and the "weaker" semi-permeable membranes turn out to dominate the soup pot.

                  Natural selection plays out over generations of competition - stronger membranes, better control of what goes in and out, pirate techniques like injecting one's own form of RNA through someone else's membrane ( a technique still used by viruses to this day), or "disguising" one's outside to make it look like you have someone else's DNA.

                  It took millions upon millions of years before reproduction plus natural selection produced the first true cell.

                  If you want the real mystery in the whole thing, the mystery is how something so phenomenally unlikely as RNA appeared to start the process of making exact duplicates of DNA carbon chains.

                  If you want to see the hand of God in the whole story, THAT would be the place to point.

                  Jenny

                  1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
                    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    And I think THAT is why the belief in "God" is constantly up in the 80-90% range in the United States.  Try defining that God, however, and that percentage will drop rapidly!

                    Not that it refutes your argument for possible evidence of a god, but I want to know where the original DNA and RNA strands came?  For me, that is one of several crucial points where evolution cannot explain without God.  And Mark, that might be the differentiation point between evolutionists and atheists.

                    Hey, that makes me think of something else for you Mark.  How do you reconcile evolution with being an Atheist?  Do you believe that a God exists?  If so, then you're not an atheist, right?  And if not, then where did those DNA/RNA strands originate?  Just some more thought provoking... all in the name of good fun!

                  2. profile image0
                    sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    No, evolution did not begin with a complete single-celled organism appearing from nowhere.

                    It began with carbon chains.----Jenny---


                    I really have to disagree for maybe the first time Jenny, maybe you should include a little more.  There were five other elemets present before carbon.  All though carbon is the element present in all living things,  if it wasn't for the five prior then carbon wouldn't have become carbon.  And all the prior elements are required to make up life.

                    If any of the elements were missing, then there wouln't be any form of life.  Note, my idea of life also includes things like stars, universal dead zones (the seemingly nothing) and even rocks. 

                    All the elements known to man where always present at the beggining.  But a single celled "thing" orgamism that contained all the elements known about life this far certainly did not appear out of no where.  Where it came from and for what purpose, I can't consider an accident, or chance.  Everything came from one whole entity that is undefined, but as my idea of creation would have it, all of life, even the seeminly unimportant things or elements have and always will be helped along by the greater force.


                    This isn't an attempt to make you say there is a God---but the way I see it,  if there wasn't,  we wouldn't be here to begin with, and we wouldn't have survived this long without the help of The God. 

                    I do believe everything was given to us to sustain life and to grow and to evolve without the need to consider God, and I believe in the great Unseen, unidenifable, ineffable, all powerful, everything, creationist, whatever God.  And for myself,  I do give thanks, even when life sucks, but life sucks because we made it suck and I don't think God cares if you say you believe in God or not, but for me to consider the many paradies and complexities of life, God is part of that because I believe if there is more.   big_smile

  18. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

    haha yes Thom, I was thinking the same thing about how this thread came about to evolution.  I'm careful about the subject, as I don't want to say every atheist believes in evolution and vice versa!

    And thanks for the clarification on the evolution process not being predictive.  What you said makes more sense to me now.

    Since this is a thread on how atheism rules and since you are an atheist, Thom, feel free to steer this conversation away from evolution if you'd like!

    I was told that most conversations about religion/God/atheism end up at creation because creation is the foundation of Christianity.  Picture it like a fortress.  Since creation is the bottom, foundational piece of this fortress known as Christianity, once that's knocked out everything else (Christian ethics and morals, etc) falls!

    Sandra- I haven't been trying to avoid you!  I haven't responded to you because 1 it's hard enough to keep up with mark's and thom's and jenny's challenges smile and 2 sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you're saying!

    I can't say that I agree with your last comment, though.  But this conversation will have to be continued later, as I need to get going...

    And Mark, I don't think it's fair that you get a 6-7 hour jump start on us being in France and all!  haha

    Be back soon...

  19. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    This thread isn't evolving, it's revolving.  wooohoooooooo! LOL.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it is. But I think we need to clearly define evolution. This seems to be the bugbear. Evolution is not an individual animal that suddenly decides to be a different animal.

      Of course, if the earth is only 6,000 years old - maybe it is big_smile

      1. Misha profile image62
        Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Just refer to "evolution of species" vs "evolving of individual" big_smile

        If you use the word species it probably will weed out other interpretations - at least I hope so wink

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Already been tried - several times big_smile

  20. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 15 years ago

    Reading some of these posts (particularly from some of our more evangelical chums) I get the definite impression that their objections to the theory of evolution do not derive from any scientific theory or rational argument, but from a sense of moral outrage!

    It's as if they think that if everyone believed that we descended from monkeys, everyone would start behaving like monkeys!

    I have to say that I simply do not comprehend their objections. I have some very devout Christian friends who accept the theory of evolution just as strongly and comprehensively and  passionately as I do. They simply don't have a problem.

    There are, in fact, some excellent books on evolution written by practicing Christians. Perhaps that 's a good place to start ...

  21. gamergirl profile image84
    gamergirlposted 15 years ago

    Getting back to the topic of atheism, and at the risk of sounding mean, why is it that many atheists (I've met -quite a few-) seem to take on an air of condescension when asked about their lack of devotion to the names and concepts of God/dess?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I try not to be condescending.

      But I guess it could sound condescending but I don't see much of that on this thread. More an inability to understand why some one would choose to ignore evidence because it doesn't fit their belief system.

      I think it comes from the fact that most atheists are coming from a completely different starting point than many (not all) believers.

      I came from the starting point that I did not believe there was a God - based solely on my personal experiences (which I do not wish to go in to) and observations. I then looked at the other possibilities available, and decided that there were some things that made sense to me. Either from talking to other people, reading and coming to my own conclusions.

      As to why atheism rules - it's not a fixed belief system. It's flexible and open to new evidence to the contrary. I am happy to say that if a God/ess arrived on a burning chariot, or I was abducted by aliens and told I was the culmination of a long term experiment, or if Zeus came down and explained what was going on, or if the fairies appeared at the bottom of my garden, I would cheerfully change my tune.

      I am not basing my belief system solely on a 2,000 year old book that no one can agree on the meaning of big_smile

  22. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    I am with Thom, in that I think that the problem with Christain acceptance of evolution has everything to do with thier morality.  I guess, as I understand it, that anything animal is the devil.  So saying we came from apes makes us out to be animals instead of God beings, because animals belong to satan and humans belong to God. 

    I also think the concept of the Earth only being 6000 years old, may have to do with believing that modern humans were placed here on purpose, somehow by God and that "we" people as we are now are a creation or reflection of God himself. 

    So this "jump" as it has been refered to is maybe, thier way of trying to say that people did not come from Apes but were always this way. 

    This would make some sense, if you were to say that Aliens were real, and we were some project of God, and that God is like a human that lives in the Heavens, sorta like "Clash of the Titans." 

    But if going by the Bible, then we still came from Earth, the dirt of the Earth and a breath from God.  Humans are still animals.  Maybe a christain needs reassurance that we are not animals like ducks and wolves, but human animals, the special ones, the only ones able to recieve God or even think about evolution for that matter. While the  apes that are still apes, were not chosen or as Darwin would put it, were not naturally selected.  Or as the Bible would put it, they are a bad seed.

    But maybe this approach wont make sense either.  But I will keep trying.

  23. Misha profile image62
    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Since I have no way of knowing what exactly wolf or ape or bear or pig or dolphin is thinking about right now, I don't buy into them not thinking about evolution big_smile

    Seriously, how can you tell if they think and feel like us or may be even better than us or not? Look at dolphins playing...

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      true dat Misah, but that post is for the ones who think they know everything.  It was my different approach to explaining evolution. 

      I feel sorta insulted Misha. but thats ok, whateva!  wink

      1. Misha profile image62
        Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        My Goddess, I did not mean to insult you! I beg for forgiveness wink

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          LOL- all is forgiven, now and in the future.  smile

  24. Misha profile image62
    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Thank you My Goddess! smile

    And making a short off-top - I was always fascinated by dolphins, from my early childhood. And pretty often I can't help thinking they are the top of evolutionary process, not us. They don't rape the Nature, they blend into it - and seem to live happily without much struggle... Not to mention their evolutionary path was much more complex than ours...

  25. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Misha - you must read Douglas Adams if you haven't. In a way he started this thread big_smile

    So long and thanks for all the fish smile  Is one of my favorite quotes as the dolphins leave the soon to be destroyed earth .

    1. Misha profile image62
      Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mark, I'll put him in line after Plato smile
      Seriously, I probably read too much before - I can't force myself to read any new book for the last couple of years...

  26. Inspirepub profile image72
    Inspirepubposted 15 years ago

    I was just going to post the bit where human think they are more intelligent than dolphins because they have invented digital watches and compound interest and the Blackberry, while all dolphins have done is hang out in the ocean, having fun.

    While dolphins think they are more intelligent than humans, for exactly the same reason.

    Jenny

  27. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    that's funny, I have always had a strong interest in dolphins as well as sea otters among others.

    Did you know Misha, that dolphins are also very brutal creatures. Not too far from us, really.
    More evolved, maybe, I don't know, can't say for sure, but like Jenny said...

    1. Misha profile image62
      Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Sandy, why do you think they are as brutal as us? I never heard of them killing for fun...

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        good point, but I wasn't thinking like that.  I was thinking more like, taking on sharks.  Or killing the enemy etc.

  28. gamergirl profile image84
    gamergirlposted 15 years ago

    One of the things Mark Knowles has always found hardest to understand about humans was their habit of continuously stating and repeating the very very obvious, as in "It's a nice day", or "You're very tall", or "Oh dear you seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you all right?"

    big_smile big_smile big_smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      LOL - Too true.

      Silent Assassin - I don't know where you get your information from, but the discovery of penicillin had nothing to do with wartime. And the study of genetics began in 1859, well before the Nazis came to power in Germany. What makes you think that all modern day genetics came out of the "christian" experiments done by the Nazis?

      And not believing in God has very little to do with science. smile It's just common sense.

      1. Silent Assassin profile image59
        Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Mark Knowles wrote:



        LOL - Too true.

        Silent Assassin - I don't know where you get your information from, but the discovery of penicillin had nothing to do with wartime. And the study of genetics began in 1859, well before the Nazis came to power in Germany. What makes you think that all modern day genetics came out of the "christian" experiments done by the Nazis?

        And not believing in God has very little to do with science. smile It's just common sense.

        Although it was discovered earlier, Penecillin came about as a result of a need to combat infection during hospitilization as this was causing more deaths than the actual wounds themselves.

        The field of genetics was greatly advanced by the nazis as the were looking into lebanstraum i think it was called, because they wanted to know undoubtably who was of "pure blood" and those who were'nt.

  29. Silent Assassin profile image59
    Silent Assassinposted 15 years ago

    I was just thinking about how we have advanced in the field of medicine since WW2, and the contrast of living in an age where cures for diseases were thought to be chants and prayers, etc.
    most scientific advances in this area were due to necessity from wartime eg: penecillin, physical trauma treatment.

    It's a bitter pill to swallow that all modern day genetics is based on the experiments that the nazis performed upon the jews / POW's etc.

    It seems like there were and are disturbing sacrifices being made in order to advance our understanding in the name of science,

    1. Inspirepub profile image72
      Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      As distinct from the disturbing sacrifices made, with no apparent gains in understanding and sometimes in order to suppress it, in the name of religion?

      Jenny

      P.S. To wit, the execution of Galileo, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of the library in Alexandria, the Salem witchcraft trials, and the 30 Years War, just to name a few ...?

      1. Silent Assassin profile image59
        Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I guess that both sides of the coin have proven themselves to be unobjective. there were plenty of scientists who were discredited by their peers for  being crazy or deluded in their time, only to be proven right as time went on.
        I think that it's too easy to blame religion for this, its just human nature to be afraid or deny what we dont understand

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          But most scientists who were branded crazy or deluded were branded thus not by their peers, but the church smile

          And there is a huge difference. Science is attempting to push the boundaries of knowledge (admittedly - I do not agree with some directions taken or the lack of ethics involved, such as the experiments the Nazis did or recent attempts to genetically manipulate animals) whereas religion is attempting to maintain the status quo and does not want any new knowledge and tends to argue for the old "knowledge," instead of striving for new.

          1. Silent Assassin profile image59
            Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with what you are saying in that a lot of churches do not have much room for new knowledge. I hear that they are labled as fundimentilist. I dont have much time for that ignorant philosophy. The church did take a defensive stance to science maybe because it had the power to prove that god didnt exist. What institution wouldnt? It had been around for centuries, controlling all matters political and spiritual, amassing huge wealth, influence and land.
            I dont think any modern institution would just stand back and let themselves be disassembled,
            even if what the antagonists were saying is true

            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              Oddly enough, I do not see that evolution in any way proves the non-existence of God LOL - It may prove that the bible is not to be taken literally, but that's all. I don't think science will ever be able to prove the non-existence of God (see first post) It is awfully hard, if not impossible to prove that something is not there in the face of a BELIEF that it is. big_smile

              But the church advertises itself as being above these sort of considerations.

              1. Silent Assassin profile image59
                Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Mark Knowles wrote:



                Oddly enough, I do not see that evolution in any way proves the non-existence of God LOL - It may prove that the bible is not to be taken literally, but that's all. I don't think science will ever be able to prove the non-existence of God (see first post) It is awfully hard, if not impossible to prove that something is not there in the face of a BELIEF that it is. big_smile)

                So is stubborness a sign of stupidity? hahaha

                1. Mark Knowles profile image58
                  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Now - don't go putting words in my mouth big_smile LOL

                  1. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
                    Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                    I realize this comment was not directed at Sir Mark, but it is funny that it was made to perhaps the most stubborn hubber on HubPages (and I think Mark would agree).

                    You are still a wise man, Mark...despite Silent Assassin's implications big_smile

          2. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
            Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Religion, yes, but this maintaining the status quo is a misapplication of what Jesus taught by religious leaders.  Jesus quite vehemently argued against status-quo religion.  Unfortunately, most institutions are static rather than dynamic.  This is changing, by the way, slowly but surely.

            So, I agree with your criticism of religion in this respect, but it is not what "religion" is supposed to be doing.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              So what is religion "supposed," to be doing? big_smile

  30. Misha profile image62
    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Well, even their life is not always smooth probably. Sometimes they have to pick between killing and being killed...

  31. Sprinkler Man profile image58
    Sprinkler Manposted 15 years ago

    Its kind of funny that you finally brought the dolphins back up!!!

    Did anyone read what I said about dolphins?

    They bear their young alive and breathe out of a whole in their head. They need oxygen to live!!!

    So they must have e v o l v e d from the dry land to the sea, correct? or uh wait, uh no, they couldn't have.... uh er they were dropped from a space ship, uh maybe.....

    I am also interested in everyones thoughts on language. How did the different languages evolve?

    Everyone just said, I don't like the way you talk, smak smak - I am going to make up my own language.

    Oh yeah, language happened when all the other types of humans evolved. They all evolved into other parts of the world and came up with their own languages.......

    It seems if we evolved from somewhere, wouldn't we have stuck together? All be the same?

    Like Dolphins? or maybe monkeys? Oh there are so many different breeds of animals that have evolved........

    Wow, Like the Orangutan and Ape - wait a minute, why isn't there anything in between? Oh they are already past that point in evolution..........There are over 200 different kinds of monkeys!!! 33 Different types of ocean dolphin - I guess they each evolved into what they are today? Or there were offspring and they just happened to change. Maybe at one time there were 233 different kinds of monkeys and 33 of the monkeys just happened to change into a different kind of dolphin. LOL

    The point I am still trying to make is, nothing is evolving, each and every animal still reproduces exactly the same way it did since it was created.....There is way to much proof to support this. Just open your eyes. Evolution at its best, is still just a theory. There is no proof.

    Just one more thing I will throw into the loop - the venus fly trap. It doesn't need any type of food or nutrition to get into its trap to survive. It only needs light and water like all plants, to produce its flowers or traps. Why would something like that evolve???

    Your non-atheist, non-evolutionist friend,

    Sprinkler Man

    1. Inspirepub profile image72
      Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, they did. They have a common ancestor with bears and dogs. What makes you think this is not possible?

      Sorry I didn't directly respond when you raised them before - I didn't actually think you were serious in your statement. Every primary school child knows that cetaceans are a branch of an air-breathing genus, and i thought you were older than that.



      Language isn't genetic. If you take a baby born to Korean-speaking parents, and raise it in the USA, it will speak English, not Korean.

      Individual languages are a cultural phenomenon, not a physical one.

      You can see them developing, just over the period of written history. English as we speak it has a wide range of influences from Greek, Latin, Scandinavian, Saxon, French, etc.

      New languages (creoles) develop wherever two languages meet, for example when European nations colonised the Americas and Asia.

      What IS genetic is the physical equipment required to produce language - the shape of hte throat, mouth, and lips, and the brain structures which process symbols.

      We can tell this because babies born all over the word "babble" the same set of sounds to begin with, but over time they drop the sounds they never hear the adults around them making, and just keep the ones that get meaning attached.

      Chimps and apes have the brain structure to use symbols, and have been taught sign language and symbol languages, but lack the throat structure which enables speech as humans do it.

      Scientists believe that language was the advantage possessed by the one female who, several million years ago, began the genetic line from which all human alive today descend. They call her "Eve".





      Sprinkler Man, blatant displays of ignorance like this one do your cause absolutely no good.

      You are entitled to keep doing this, but it makes you look silly and weakens any valid points you might make.

      Please go and learn what natural selection is and how it works, for your own sake.



      The Venus flytrap is a vegetable - it uses photosynthesis to transform energy, water and minerals into plant tissue.

      It evolved the ability to capture insects because catching its own supply of nitrogen enabled it to survive better and reproduce more than its neighbors who didn't have that ability. The better an individual plant was at catching flying insects, the more likely it was to have lots of offspring, so, over time, each generation was, on average, better and better at doing it. Over millions of years, they got very good indeed.

      There is no point in asking "why" about natural selection. That's like asking "why would a bend like that develop in a river" or "why would a cloud that shape develop" - the natural world just moves according to the natural laws, and you get what you get. Often, it is spectacular and awe-inspiring, what you get. Sometimes, for example in the case of head lice, it is just downright annoying.

      Things evolve in the direction of attributes which help them to have more offspring which live to reproduce. Some go for strength and size, some go for speed and smallness, some go for being hard for predators to see, some go for being poisonous to potential predators, some go for being intelligent and using tools, some go for being a parasite on another, stronger creature, some go for having a tough shell.

      None of them sat down in advance ten million years ago and said "hmm, think I'll make my shell thicker", LOL. They just did their best to survive, and it turned out that the ones whose shells were a little thicker survived better than the thin-shelled ones ... and so it goes.

      No reason. No planning. Lots of dead ends (like flightless birds, LOL). Lots of mistakes (we still have 1 in 3 pregnancies miscarry - many of these embryos have visible defects, because we carry the results of many failed mutations hidden in our DNA.)

      If you read up on evolution and understand it, you will see why intelligent Christians have embraced it as a great description of HOW GOD CREATED ALL THIS.

      I could pose you a series of very challenging questions about the logic of creationism, but it simply wouldn't be fair, because you don't know enough basic biology to engage with them meaningfully.

      Jenny

  32. Sprinkler Man profile image58
    Sprinkler Manposted 15 years ago

    Jenny,

    Your a riot!!!

    Thanks for your reply - if it wasn't for your accusation and you calling me ignorant, immature silly and weak I would actually respond to what you have said.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Now you are just validating those statements - that Jenny didn't actually make. She said that displaying your ignorance makes you look silly and weakens your argument.

      Twisting words to suit your own belief system.Sound familiar?



      I would certainly be interested in the "proof.," you have. I have opened my eyes, but appear to have missed it. Of course, some christians claim to know and that apparently constitutes proof.

      "I believe, therefore it is. And no amount of reasoned argument or evidence is going to convince me otherwise."

      Sound familiar also?

    2. Misha profile image62
      Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Did not read Jenny calling you those words - but I definitely can wink You don't seem to understand what you are talking about and just parrot what you heard elsewhere. Try to think for yourself, it's never late to do this, and as soon as you start doing this, you never want to return to parroting wink

  33. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 15 years ago

    Jenny - you are brilliant! That's just about the best concise explanation of natural selection I have ever read.

    Sprinkler Man - listen and learn!

  34. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

    haha Mark, are you trying to use your fellow Frenchman Rene Descartes's famous line, "I think, therefore I am"?  His philosophical statement was his attempt to prove his existence in the universe through mental capacity.  Not 100% sure that applies to creationists, but maybe I'm just being picky smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I am English actually, but that was supposed to be a joke. Bearing in mind, of course the Mr. Descartes had to be very careful what he said, and all his theories were colored bt a desire not top be burned at the sake for heresy. Although, I have to admit - he has one of the most compelling reasons for believing in God I have heard. smile

  35. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
    Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years ago

    Wow, quite a read with my morning cup of coffee.  A lot has happened in the last 24 hours.  I need a moment to wrap my continually evolving (a la Gamegirl) brain around it all.

    Jenny/Sprinklerman = interesting.  No need to respond.

    Mark/Ed = luckily, this still seems to be where I left off, essentially.

    Thom, good morning my atheist brother (or, afternoon).

    Misha/Sandra, good morning to you as well.  I'm not quite up on what you guys are talking about, but I'm sure it is fascinating.

    Questions?  Comments?

    1. Misha profile image62
      Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Good morning Peter smile We were just having off-top small talk wink

    2. Thom Carnes profile image60
      Thom Carnesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Peter - good morning/ afternoon/ evening/ night (please delete as applicable).

      This discussion shows little sign of slowing down. As you see, we have come back round to evolution - always a hot topic.

      The mention of DNA has opened up some new and entertaining vistas, I think. Of course, Darwin himself had no knowledge of DNA: no doubt he would have been fascinated by the way it supports and underpins much of what he said.

      For example ...

      The same DNA test that reveals whether a man is father to his child can also reveal distant family relationships - *even across different species*.

      Just as the fossil record indicates that humans descended from the same ape ancestors as chimpanzees, so DNA confirms that over 98% of a chimp's DNA is identical to human DNA.

      In addition, all living creatures carry what are known as "junk genes" - ie a sort of excess genetic baggage carried over from an imperfect copying process. Interestingly, these junk genes are also shared with chimpanzees.

      Do the creationists think this is a coincidence? (Probably - or just God being coy or evasive once again!)

      It seems pretty obvious that the *only* way this shared DNA could exist is through (distant) blood relationship = evolution.

      And I wonder how the fact (and it *is* a fact) that humans share over 98% of their DNA with chimps affects the cosy, comfortable notion that humans were made in God's image ....

      1. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
        Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I will write more later because I have to run right now, but quickly Matthew 28:18-19, Mark 16:17-18, and Acts 1-8, and all those little words in red.



        I want to respond to this more thoroughly, but maybe this will suffice for now (it's not the mainstream of Christian thought on being "made in God's image", but I have advanced this idea and would be interested in your take):

        http://beautyofthebible.blogspot.com/20 … erent.html

        1. Thom Carnes profile image60
          Thom Carnesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I quite understand that, based on your interpretation of the appropriate Biblical texts, *you* may not fully believe that man is made in God's image - but you will surely agree that it's a pretty widespread notion amongst Christian believers.

          I just can't help wondering how they will reconcile that belief with the fact that 98% of that image is chimpanzee!

          1. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
            Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, I believe we are made AND being made in God's image all the time.  If man is to be made in God's image, we could have been 100% lab rat as far as I am concerned, and it would have turned out just as it was supposed to.  But, that it is a process doesn't mean it was't complete when God spoke it (the whole yesterday, today and tomorrow thing).  We are hampered by temporal thought, God is not.

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              nice wording Peter.

            2. Thom Carnes profile image60
              Thom Carnesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              Peter - my little (and, I admit, rather frivolous) "aside" about man being made in God's image may have obscured the main point I was tring to make - that the fossil record indicates that man and chimpanzee share a common ancestor, and that this has now been confirmed by DNA results.

              It is, I think, another nail in the creationist coffin - unless, of course, they are now going to include genetics along with all the other scientific disciplines (geology, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, biology, etc., etc.) - which, of course, MUST be wrong because they contradict what was written in a collection of Bronze Age folk tales....

              1. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
                Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Thom, I will say to you what I have said to Mark repeatedly, you and I are missing each other because you are discussing a theology I have not been discussing.  It is a straw man.  I can do what others on this thread have done and argue against some inapplicable position taken by some atheists and try to lump you in with them, but what would be the point.  I realize that when I define myself as Christian, there is automatically a stigma attached, but that is as unfair as me attaching a stigma to all atheists, Muslims, Brits, blacks, hubbers, etc.

                BTW good morning/afternoon. big_smile

                1. Thom Carnes profile image60
                  Thom Carnesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Bonjour, Peter! (A nice time-zone-free greeting!)

                  Nice to talk with you, as always

                  I do apologise for making the totally unwarranted asumption that you are a creationist. To be honest, I'm not sure what your precise views are on evolution. But you obviously believe some (most? all?) of what's written in the Bible.

                  If you don't believe all of it, what criteria do you use to determne what to accept and what to reject?

                  (This isn't another frivolous question. I have a deep, genuine and long-term interest in what intelligent Christians believe - or, rather, *why* they believe it.)

  36. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
    Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years ago

    I'm down, Misha.  It's fun isn't it?

  37. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

    Welcome Peter!  You might want to go back for a second cup of coffee!

  38. WeddingConsultant profile image64
    WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

    TAG, you're it!

  39. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    ok, another version, LOL.

    Let's say, for instance, Jesus was an evolutionary being.  He was born to the Virgin Mary by God.  God being the laws of nature, and Mary was naturally selected to bare the Son of God, because for whatever reason, be it moral or physical (virginity) her genetic make up was special, and was able to concieve a baby without intercourse.  Worms are asexual, they can reproduce without sex (maybe a bad example but...) In some ways, this is the theory of natural selection biblical style.  God could have chosen someone else, but Mary had a special gene that made it possible as well as moral integritiy and faith in God. 
    Some could argue that it is just a story, or she four other children with Joseph and all, but something physical was in her that allowed for it.  You could say that God, just changed her, but that wouldn't make sense because the old testament was already talking about her, even though they didn't know her name then.  God took the time to make it happen, and by time, I mean a long time, not just instanly, and for the most part, I could say that God probably didn't know her name,  he gave life what it needed at the beggining of time, universe and all, and eventually came a Mary and a Jesus. 

    If this isn't good enough, I will try another version. LOL.

    1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
      WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Haha, Sandra,  you sure come up with the most random thoughts!  Out of curiosity I'd like to see you, "try another version"...

  40. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    ok another version:  God planted the seeds, and the seeds will grow and change until they become what they are ultimatly meant to become.  Howd'ya like them apple seeds.  LOL!

    1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
      WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Sandra, what are you saying?  That everything was first a "seed" planted by God and then the seeds sprouted into humans, trees, rocks, etc?

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I am saying the seed, is the origin of life.  whatever this seed actually is, which could very well be the one single cell the encompassed all of life origins and set the course of the life as we know it, and with that is also evolution.  It's the proccess in which life changes to survive. 

        Trees grow, you know this cause you can see it, but a tree that is not directly in the sun, bends towards the light of the sun for it's energy.  If the tree couldn't bend, it would die.  ( and this has more than one meaning to it, so try to be more open about it.)

  41. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    WC -

    Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing, but I suppose there must have been one single cell organism that developed first. But, much like the earth as an ecosystem, I very much doubt it would have managed much all on it's own big_smile

    So, back to the questions. LOL You do not believe evolution happens, but you do believe animals adapt and change as the need arises - but not enough for them to change in any significant way?

    Is that correct?

    And as far as the church "evolving," and now saying that evolution happened but it was part of god's plan. This is merely a survival technique big_smile It is hard to argue against an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to the fact that the earth is older than 6,000 years. I personally think that if the church is to survive in any size, this is the only viable option.

    What about that flood theory of yours? Didn't get to that yet. big_smile

    1. Silent Assassin profile image59
      Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mark Knowles wrote:

      WC -


      So, back to the questions. LOL You do not believe evolution happens, but you do believe animals adapt and change as the need arises - but not enough for them to change in any significant way?

      Is that correct?

      I am guessing here but I would have thought that the shift from reptilian to mammals was quite significant, Still a mystery really, what caused it, the "meteor" hitting earth or climate change?
      I guess that for a major evolutionary change to take place, the environment would have to change dramatcally? what is your opinion Mark?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I honestly don't know. I think you are right - it must have been something major and there are a lot of suppositions suggesting a meteorite strike.

        Although, as I understand it, mammal-like animals and dinosaurs were around at the same time, I am not sure dinosaurs are still classed as reptiles though.

        And there is still a strong reptile presence on earth right now. The insects have us seriously outnumbered though. And when we finish screwing up the environment, I think the next age will be the "age of the Insect." lol

        1. Silent Assassin profile image59
          Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Mark Knowles wrote:



          I honestly don't know. I think you are right - it must have been something major and there are a lot of suppositions suggesting a meteorite strike.

          Although, as I understand it, mammal-like animals and dinosaurs were around at the same time, I am not sure dinosaurs are still classed as reptiles though.

          And there is still a strong reptile presence on earth right now. The insects have us seriously outnumbered though. And when we finish screwing up the environment, I think the next age will be the "age of the Insect." lol

          smile yeah i think sheer numbers will win the day for insects too! if they can survive our ungraceful attempts to wipe them out!

      2. Inspirepub profile image72
        Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Reptiles and mammals have co-existed for epochs. However, for many millennia, mammals were a minor part of the biomass. Mammals did not become the dominant animals until - yes, you are right - the environment changed dramatically.

        A meteor struck the Earth, and the resulting centuries of atmospheric dust made life more difficult for animals which relied on the heat of the sun to keep their body temperatures up.

        Mammals suddenly had a significant advantage, because they could create their own body heat internally.

        In a more tropical environment, mammals didn't have any particular advantage, in fact possibly even a small disadvantage because they needed to eat regularly to sustain their metabolism, but on the new, cooler Earth, the investment in regular eating paid off with a massive advantage, and so they outbred the reptiles.

        Jenny

    2. WeddingConsultant profile image64
      WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I figured that out when I clicked on the link.  I learned a new term today!

      Yes, that's my stance, in a nutshell!  And I would specify that "significant" should imply a change from one species to a different species over time...


      I agree- I think it's a cop out on the part of the church.  The stance, in this particular situation, should either be one or the other, not some "happy" middle ground.

        Well, I was waiting for a good time to bring it up, but it seems the question has been asked, so here are my challenging thoughts on the subject:

      What if a large flood created the world as we know it today?  What if it created the "layers" found in the earth that some scientists claim were put there over millions of years? (click here for a picture of sedimentary layers.  Doing a search of "Grand Canyon sedimentary layers" turned up a ton of ignorant chatter, from both sides of the fence...not advised!)  What if this flood killed all dinosaurs on the earth?  Furthermore, what if this world-wide flood scattered the bodies of the dinosaurs across the world, thus causing their fossils to be found in a number of places?  What if this flood also caused the bodies of large mammals to be found even with evidence of fresh vegetation in their stomachs, so as to indicate a quick death?  What if this flood explained why there were woolly mammoths, complete with full coats of fur, found very close to the equator?  Surely they wouldn't have lived there and surely they wouldn't have migrated to warmer climates, right?

      Some of these questions bring up the decomposing qualities of H2O.  Mark, as you aptly pointed out earlier, water is required for rust to occur.  Think about other objects, such as wood...or drywall for example.  Wood rots much more rapidly when H2O is present.  Try submerging a piece of drywall into water and also having a piece out of water beside it.  Give it some time and see which one comes out more "intact."

      Going on with the qualities of H2O, it is a naturally occurring solvent, meaning it dissolves many different liquids, solids and gases.  Additionally, H2O is amphoteric, meaning it can act as either an acid or a base on the PH scale.  Water is some awesome, dynamic stuff!  Hopefully I've made that point.  If so, then think of water covering the entire world (not hard to think of since the world is already about 70% water and our bodies are 75% water!) and think of the implications of this.

      Maybe that will spark discussion!  I'll log on tomorrow and catch myself up and try to respond. Until then smile

      1. Inspirepub profile image72
        Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Water may have certain powers, but I really don't think even the world's most powerful solvent could turn trees into coal and oil in 40 days.

        You see, it takes more than just decomposition - it takes massive pressure, as well.

        Nice try and all, but ... er ... no. I think Mark is being very polite to entertain the suggestion as neutrally as he has so far.

        Jenny

  42. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    for the love of God,  if you really haven't figured out Jesus yet, I will sum it up for you, so you can move on.

    Jesus did the will of God, if you hadn't noticed yet, that everything Jesus did was for people, then I will say out loud with as much flamboyancy as I can.  To do the will of Jesus, you are supposed to be doing everything for the people.  HELLO!!!!!!!! anyone in this church. 


    I think it's stupid, yes I said stupid, to believe that doing God's will is to sit in a church and worship Jesus and do nothing else accept quietly repent etc.  and pray you will go to heaven.

    If you want to argue that this is an incorrect interpretation, go ahead.  But I will plant my feet on the ground and tell ya, yes, yes you are supposed to be helping each other and it doesn't matter what religion you are. 

    As far as evolution is concered, Jesus is not the Creator, Jesus is a creator, not The Creator.  Jesus did not make Earth and all the things in it, God did that.  And God is not defined, you can't define God by any one thing, Ok. 

    If Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Life, did you ever wonder where the friggin tree came from.  Hello!!!!! It was already there, how it happened how God, did it, what seed what cell whatever, you will never know.  That is just the way it is, so get with the program. 

    The tree of life, was knowledge, so get some if you dare, I am sure God isn't going to bar you from Heaven for noticing that "God" had a plan, whatever "God" is.

    1. Misha profile image62
      Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Sandy, this is just brilliant!

  43. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
    Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years ago

    Thanks.

  44. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago



    My pleasure big_smile


    This is the contradiction again. smile What you are then saying is that evolution does not happen. big_smile But you are also saying that animals (and plants) do change - but only within your narrowly defined parameters. Evolution and change either occurs - or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.


    I am not saying it's a cop-out. It's a survival technique. Either get with the evolutionary program - or be eaten by the facts. big_smile



    Whew - this is what you were getting at in the previous comments.

    Jenny ? LOL

    I will try to deal with each part an answer as well as I can, and hope that Jenny will respond more scientifically - I am not good with that stuff LOL

    Scientists - Firstly, when you say "some" scientists, you are implying that there is a small minority who are fighting the massive opinion of a large majority who disagree. The overwhelming majority agree that these "layers" were laid down over millions of years. As opposed to somewhere between 40 and 150 days (depending on which interpretation you want to go with). Are you seriously telling me you think that these "layers" were laid down in a few days? In fact, the only "scientists" I know who disagree happen to work for the CRI big_smile

    Dinosaurs - No, this theory is seriously not going to fly. Quite apart from the logical arguments - what? no mention of the dinosaurs in the bible? Dinosaurs were around as little as a few thousand years ago? And no reference to them anywhere. Ever? None ? Nothing? big_smile No cave paintings? Noah himself was living in a land full of dinosaurs? But they were not "good" enough to be included in the ark? And the evidence that shows these animals existed a long, long time ago.

    Rusting and rotting - Nothing to do with each other. Nothing This is actually a plausible argument if you have absolutely no understanding of these processes. It's kind of a shame that there is a group trying to compare the two. Yes, water is required for rusting to occur - but what has that got to do with creating fossils?

    Water is dynamic, awesome stuff. So awesome, in fact, that I cannot survive without it. smile Neither can you. But - it won't make a dinosaur decompose and turn to oil in a few days time. smile

    WC-

    Please do not take this as a personal attack. But there is no way this could happen in the way you describe it. It just doesn't make sense. It is more a case of desperately attempting to twist the facts to suit a previous belief.

    Try immersing a dead animal in a bucket of water and seeing how quickly it turns to oil big_smile

    Tag

    1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
      WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mark, read Job 41 if you'd like to see evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible.  So maybe there were dinosaurs on the ark. Who knows.  But, you asked to see evidence of a dinosaur in the Bible, take a look at that reference.  Keep in mind, though, that the author wasn't writing everything literally.  They didn't concern themselves with being 100% historically and factually accurate.  I agree with Peter, though, that every word in the Bible is there for a reason.  I also realize that in saying that one could come along and say, "SEE, I told you! Even they say the Bible isn't accurate!"


      First and foremost, I wanted to clarify something just in case.  I hope you don't think I'm suggesting water "creates" fossils.  Fossils, in our discussion, = bones of dinosaurs, so dinosaurs "created" the bones that we call fossils today.  Maybe that clears up a miscommunication, maybe it was frivolous, maybe it helped a reader of this thread.
      Okay- I'm going to use a rather graphic example of how the existence of water could bring about fossils (bones).  Picture a bunch of dead dinosaurs...and let's say they died because of...a flood (original, I know).  So there are a number of dead dinosaur bodies scattered around the world (as we have discovered, scientifically, right?).  Here's the graphic part- water decomposes flesh more rapidly than if that flesh were simply exposed to the elements.  Think about how many murders occur, real or fictional such as on TV, in which the murderer tosses the body into a river, ocean, etc.  According to this website (which has no religious affiliation), when a body as under water:
      "The hands and feet swell (several days), the outer layer of skin separates from the underlying tissues (5-6 days), the skin of the hands and the nails separate (8-10 days), and entire body swells shortly thereafter. Tissues become extremely fragile and are easily damaged during removal from the water."

      I'm not advocating the 40 day theory, but I'm proving the point that the move from dinosaur to fossil occurs much more rapidly when water is present.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        No, you are wrong. Sorry. Fossils occur both in water and out of water, and as I understand it, the process is slightly different, and there are differences between fossils that formed underwater and fossils that formed else where. There are many different types of fossil. The chalk cliffs of Dover, in England for instance, are a fossil formation.

        What are you trying to prove with this? That the oldest fossils are  3.499999999 billion years old instead of 3.5 billion?

        1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
          WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I didn't think I was implying there are only several types of fossils.  Did I miss something maybe?

          And to answer your questions at the bottom- I'm not trying to "prove" anything.  I was simply explaining my take on the earth's age.  As I said previously, my goal isn't to "convert" or "convince" anyone on here.  If I were able to do that, then that person could just as easily sway back to something else.  That's not my goal or motive for writing what I've written- I don't have an ulterior motive.

          Anyway, did you get a chance to read that Job 41?  I'd like to know what you think- good or bad.

      2. Inspirepub profile image72
        Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Ummmm ... a bone stripped of flesh is not a fossil. A fossil is not made of bone - it is made of stone.

        A fossil occurs when the bone itself becomes stone instead of carbon-based matter. The process by which carbon-based structures become silicon-based structures requires the right environment, massive pressure and a long, long time. Longer than 6,000 years.

        Bones eventually decompose and disappear, unless they are preserved by fossilisation.

        Jenny

        1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
          WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Jenny, thanks for the explanation.  I won't continue down that path as I'm not an expert in that area.  I don't suspect you are, but it looks like you've done some good homework here.  I was under the mis perception that fossils = actual bones, but in doing my own hw and reading your post that isn't the case. Thanks!

      3. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Well, I think Jenny probably covered this better than I, but you seem under the impression that fossils are only made from dinosaurs. Not true. They are formed from fish, trees, plants, insects, microbes, bacteria, footprints. All manner of things.

        You also appear to think that fossils are the result of decomposition. Also untrue. In fact, your theory of the flood and swift de-composition would actually mean less fossils. smile

        Here are some good resources for different types of fossils, how they come into being an d the difference between fossils and fossil fuels.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Formation
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

        The chalk cliffs are really very interesting. smile I didn't know this either.

        You might also want to look up aerobic, anaerobic, and anoxic - to see how different formations occur.

        And there was no flood. big_smile

        So, what theory are you advocating if not the 40 day theory? I understood that you were a literal creationist and believed the bible said 40 days (or 150, depending) so 40 days it is- Not so?

        1. WeddingConsultant profile image64
          WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I'm glad you brought up the chalk cliffs in England. Rather than typing everything out, I'd encourage you to take a look at this article.  If you approach it with an open mind to the truth, you might be surprised at what you find.  Or maybe not, I don't know...that's up to you.

          I disagree.  Mark, I haven't offered much evidence for it; I understand that.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen.  See the link above for some evidence...

          Still sticking with the fact that the earth was created in six days and there was a world-wide flood that occurred over forty days.

  45. Silent Assassin profile image59
    Silent Assassinposted 15 years ago

    I just want to know that if God does see and control everything; how does s/he, it deal with the stress of it all?

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      he give you a beer. hahah, have one on me too.  wink

      1. Silent Assassin profile image59
        Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        sandra rinck wrote:



        he give you a beer. hahah, have one on me too.  wink

        Will do smile

    2. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      There is no God. See? Problem and stress gone. Atheism Rules!

      1. Silent Assassin profile image59
        Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        hahaha true but if god does exist then you might have just hurt his / her feelings there mark.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          If God did indeed exist, I very much doubt anything I say could hurt his/her feelings LOL

  46. gamergirl profile image84
    gamergirlposted 15 years ago

    Sandra -

    Do you think a person needs to believe in a religion (any one, pick a flavor) to be kind and helpful?

    I sure don't.  These are behaviors which come natural to us, I think, and are counteracted and bred out of us by negative environments. 

    I think religion is used as an umbrella, a salve to cure all wounds, kind of like pushing religion on inmates because "conversion to Christianity is a part of many inmate's rehabilitation process."

    Gag me with a forklift.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Nope, not at all,  I have said a billion times, and I will say it a billion times more.  But it is obvious that anytime some says Jesus, that person is automatically grouped in with the Christain religion, and I am not christain.  I don't have a religion, I just know what I like, what sounds good to me, and so on, just like people who don't believe in any form of god.  I think the only difference between me and an atheist is that I still believe in God ( my own idea ).  Thats all.

  47. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    ps.  I don't see how christain reform would work in a prison when it doesn't work out of a prison. wink

    1. Silent Assassin profile image59
      Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      So you dont conform to a "religion" per say, but you feel it is important to have a close relationship with god? I find personally that when I have gone to a church that the so called "elders" are the quickest to judge people and some of what they preach feels wrong to me.
      I feel that having a one on one relationship with god is important. I dont always live up to my consience, but it feels like the main thing is to not question what is happening but to soldier on without blaming god for anything that goes wrong, to be responsible for your own actions ( to think that asking god for forgivness is enough to clean the slate is not enough. You should be compelled to make up for any wrongdoings yourself as well.) and treat others how you want to be treated, all the while being careful and strong enough to combat potential hostiles!

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        That is pretty much exactly how I feel too, my difference is that when I am really angry, I get angry at God, I figure it's best to be mad at God then some poor chum on the street already having a bad day.  LOL.  Plus I figure, when I am mad at God, then he knows why and I don't ever feel bad about it.  If I did take it out on someone else, then I would feel bad about it.  It makes more sense to me, plus it gives life a better meaning. 
        Sorta like asking a question, ie:  how come the leaves change?  1st. answer is because the leaves die, and oxidize yadda...but the other question I like better is, why does it have to oxidize when it dies, what's the purpose, whey that way and not another? 
        It's a wonder to wonder about God.  but that is just me.

        1. Silent Assassin profile image59
          Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          sandra rinck wrote:



          That is pretty much exactly how I feel too, my difference is that when I am really angry, I get angry at God, I figure it's best to be mad at God then some poor chum on the street already having a bad day.  LOL.  Plus I figure, when I am mad at God, then he knows why and I don't ever feel bad about it.  If I did take it out on someone else, then I would feel bad about it.  It makes more sense to me, plus it gives life a better meaning. 
          Sorta like asking a question, ie:  how come the leaves change?  1st. answer is because the leaves die, and oxidize yadda...but the other question I like better is, why does it have to oxidize when it dies, what's the purpose, whey that way and not another? 
          It's a wonder to wonder about God.  but that is just me. 

          Thats a good answer... My answer would be that matter doesnt die; its just the way it changes form. That could be taken in many ways but it is scientific fact.
          I like what you said about how you deal with your anger between god and yourself. It feels honest.  I reckon s/he, it knows that some things are beyond our understanding, but we will try to figure them out anyway, and get frustrated when we don't get an answer we feel comfortable with.
          using your method, at least there would be less chance of making a regrettable mistake flying off the handle at a person. It might be harder to make up for!
          So do you then think that anger is not restricted to being a negative emotion; rather a natural process that is part of some sort of coping mechanism?

  48. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Jenny - you are awesome. I could never have explained things as well as you have just done. smile

    And you are quite right - I am being polite with wedding consultant. Why? - Because he is not shouting at me and insisting I accept the TRUTH. he is genuinely trying to explain his version of events in a way that suits his belief system. Not quite making it because of the obvious flaws - But also, I see an opportunity to convert some one here smile big_smile big_smile big_smile

    You cannot possibly hold on to this theory if you understand not only evolution, but geology also.

    If the earth was created in a short space of time a few thousand years ago, you have to throw every single piece of science out the window as fabrication.

    Now, I know this is what people like the  Institute for Creation Research is trying to do:

    http://www.icr.org/

    The scary thing about these guys is they seem to be well funded and some one with some power thinks propagating this sort of misinformation is the "christian," thing to do.

    Yet another misinterpretation of the bible. One of the passages that Peter quoted to me:

    Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

    Matthew 28:18-29

    This is a complete bastardization by the IRC and well.......

    The other alternative is that they are deliberately trying to spread this message in full knowledge of the facts.

    Either way, this is an awful thing to do, and there are people swallowing it hook,line and sinker - and giving them money to continue. Which is what I suspect this is all about. They offer the chance for you to buy an "advanced degree in science education." *shudder*

    1. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
      Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, Mark.  No one, Christian or otherwise, should spread anything they know to be untrue.  However, again, this is something Jesus would have been critical of.  I am only vaguely familiar with the IRC, so I can't speak to their motives in particular, I would hope they are legitimately trying to confirm their positions rather than twisting science to fit, I honestly cannot say.  When I get a chance, I will check it out and try to figure out who is running, funding, etc.  But I have seen science used to support a variety of untenable positions: smoking doesn't cause cancer, no global warming, etc.  This is no surprise.

      But, yes, the balance of what you say is true, that is a large part the Christian mission.  A disciple is not supposed to be a blind follower, though.  This unwillingness to allow followers and potential followers to question things is part of the reason the traditional church is in the pickel that it is in.  I have never understood why if Christians truly believe they "know" the truth, why scientic discovery would or could pose a potential threat.  I am totally bewildered by this. I can't wait to really know how it all happened.

      1. Misha profile image62
        Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Peter, sorry, I have to disagree. I think global warming is a big joke ( the most polite words I was able to come up with big_smile), and I think smoking is not the cause of cancer. It may contribute to certain types of cancer, but it is not the cause...

        1. Peter M. Lopez profile image71
          Peter M. Lopezposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          True, Misha.  Okay, smoking can contribute to LUNG, and to a lesser degree possibly mouth and throat cancer.

          We will have to respectfully disagree on global warming.  But, even in our disagreement, you are too kind, smilies and everything.  I think you are the most polite disagreer I have ever met.

        2. Silent Assassin profile image59
          Silent Assassinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          True there Misha, there has to be a genetic disposition in the first place for cancer to develop, although exposure to certain chemicals can make the process of developing cancer more aggressive.

  49. Sprinkler Man profile image58
    Sprinkler Manposted 15 years ago

    A movie for all my Friends. You will get a lot of information from this movie - There is some comedy but it is also full of facts about beliefs of other cultures. Gets very descriptive about the Christian Religion and its beliefs with a lot about plagiarism of others religions.

    It also goes into what happened during 9/11 in great detail.

    This movie is for the atheist in you!!!

    http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

    Enjoy

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      LOL
      Thank you. I had not seen this, but it just confirmed what I already knew - plus some stuff I didn't.

      Have you watched it?

  50. Misha profile image62
    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    LOL I can be pretty mean, too. I just like you, as well as most people here, that's why I'm polite tongue

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)