So if you have your wisdom teeth pulled, does your wisdom drop instantly or do you gradually devolve?
Printable View
So if you have your wisdom teeth pulled, does your wisdom drop instantly or do you gradually devolve?
What a cute little demoniod that Cthulhu is.
Actually I find the evidence, and myth surrounding the elder gods extremely interesting when held up against the teachings of Christianity.
I wish that there was an unbiased collection of evidence somewhere that one could examine oneself and come to ones own conclusions. But it seems like whenever there's an anti-ecolutionary book out there it's written by someone with strong and unwavering religious convictions. And on the other side, "hard-core evolutionists" (if I may borrow Pendragon's terminology) don't seem to be willing to aknowledge the possibility of the other side, and their very belief in evolution causes them to automatically discount any "evidence" that may go against it. Us humans have the ability to rationalize anything we want to. And it just seems to me like everyone chose their side on the issue and then looked at the evidence.
Anyways, there's my speel. I was just reading through all this, and had a big moment of internal conflict. I've learned so much more about evolution recently, and have leaned towards accepting it, as my past posts may have suggested. But right now I'd really rather forget about it all, and live in a state of perpetual indecision. Blah!
I got my wisdom teeth removed in the summer, maybe they're the key to all of this. Maybe with them, everything would seem clearer. Maybe its some massive conspiracy of the dentist industry. They want to be the only "wise" ones, so they can make smart investments and things and dupe the rest of us into paying for oral surgery.
Water Lily,
You seem to be falling into the trap that so many have found in this thread. You assume that there are "the religious" on one side and "the scientists" on the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many scientists hold deep religious views. Many christians (and those of other faiths) can quite happily hold both a belief in evolution and a belief in God. My arguments in here have never been directed against those believers and I doubt that those of others have either. The argument is against dogmatic, literal belief in the creation legend, as laid out in the Bible.
I also refute the claim that the minds of those that believe in evolution are closed to any evidence against it. Science doesn't work like that - if it did, we'd still be living on a flat Earth. Science demands proof of it's theories. Religion doesn't.
I suggest that you seek out the views of someone that shares your religious convictions but also believes in evolutionary theory. I'm sure there are many websites offering those kinds of views.
You are completely right about dentists though - they are all evil!
What about evolution? Is there any way evolution and the Bible can both be true? The answer would depend on your definition of evolution. The simple answer is no! If one takes as his or her definition the full-blown atheistic version of evolution, it might go something like this. From some early inanimate environment on the earth, a living thing spontaneously arose by some sort of random, natural process without any interference by any supernatural power. The atheistic version of this theory would continue to claim that this one-celled initial life form was transformed into every species of plant, animal and so forth which has ever inhabited through a process of organic evolution.
This definition is really more a dogmatic, semi-religious assumption than a provable scientific hypothesis. Nevertheless, if it is true, then there is absolutely no way that the atheistic full-blown neo-Darwinist evolutionary assumption can be reconciled with the Bible. Genesis chapter one, and indeed the entire Bible creates the clear impression that life was created by the supernatural command of God. Genesis one further seems to imply that at different times, God created various "kinds" (to use the non-technical Hebrew term) of plants, animals and so forth. Again, this is absolutely irreconcilable with the atheistic definition above.
So the radical atheistic formulation of the evolutionary concept is incompatible with the Bible. A better question, perhaps, is whether some sort of limited evolution is compatible with what the Bible teaches. The answer would depend on one's view of Genesis one (see question 1). If one interprets Genesis chapter one to imply an earth only a few thousands of years old--one which was created in six literal twenty-four hour periods, then the answer is again no. There is no way that any really significant evolutionary change could occur in such a short time frame. Perhaps a dog could have been "evolved" from wolves in that time frame, but certainly humans and chimps could not have evolved from some common primate ancestor in that amount of time, never mind mammals from fish.
If, on the other hand, one allows for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to represent great periods of time for God's creation, then perhaps some sort of limited evolution may become possible. The question of the actual mechanism by which evolution occurs would still remain, but that would be something for the scientists to solve. The fact is that the fossil record is quite consistent with a forest rather than a single tree of evolution. In other words, the fossil record would be consistent with the possibility that a creator produced various species at various times in the distant past of the earth, followed by some sort of evolution of those created species. In fact, Darwin himself, in his earlier editions of Origin of Species allowed for the possibility that there may have been a number of different original species. The most famous example in the fossil record of species seeming to appear virtually out of nothing on geological timescales is what is known as the Cambrian explosion. At a point in the very distant past, every major body form appears in the fossil record, seemingly with no obvious precursors, in virtually zero time. Naturalistic evolutionary theories struggle mightily with the fossil record.
Do cats and lions have a common ancestor? Perhaps. Could all fish have evolved from some sort of original created fish? Possibly. Did the original one-celled organism evolve into human beings? The Bible clearly seems to say no! The fact remains that the Bible does not answer each of these questions in detail. Therefore it would be wise for individuals to investigate the question carefully and reach their own conclusions, but to not be overly dogmatic about areas which are debatable.
I believe the evidence for creation of life and the recreation by our saviour Jesus Christ is overwhelming, and that the evidence for godless evolution is questionable.
But you owe it to yourself to at least examine the evidence that stands to say that this is a matter of life and death and determine for yourself whether it is or not, if you look at it from the Adventist(now this is the church that I belong to but by no means is salvation restricted to a particular church, the best knowledge regarding it however does seem to be) perspective accompanied with an objective outlook you will become a Christian. Prove me wrong, I dare you, it will simply be heaven's gain if you try, for you will come to find you have eternal life if you but reach for it
Christian,
You make a very big assumption.
You assume that all christians believe in Genesis chapter 1, or indeed in any of Genesis. I know many devout christians who hold that it is nothing more than it appears to be; the attempt by technologically simple people to describe the origin of the world around them. A legend, nothing more. I quite agree that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Genesis; that is the whole purpose of this thread!
I would also question why only 'limited' evolution would be possible if the 'days' of Genesis were in fact great periods of time? Kindly explain these limits.
Scientists have explained the mechanism of evolution. Or do you deny the existence of DNA, that characteristics can be passed down from parents to offspring and the occurence of mutations? This was not part of Darwin's original theory. For many years, the genetic theories of Gregor Mendel were deemed incompatible with Darwin's own. The two were only merged at the turn of the 20th century. DNA was not found to be the 'stuff' of heredity until the 1960s (by Watson & Crick) and the exact mapping of the human genome has only been completed this century.
Science has happily adapted it's theory to fit all of these new facts. Each one has proved to reinforce Darwin's ideas. That he developed them without the knowledge that we possess now is remarkable. That there are those that still refuse to accept his theories, I find more remarkable still.
And, one final point, the Cambrian explosion marks the point at which the first hard shelled, marine creatures evolved. These fossilise relatively easily. Prior to that, all living things were soft bodied, with neither shells nor skeletons. These do not fossilise because their bodies rot completely, or are eaten, before they getr the chance. Fossils from before this period do exist, but they are extremely rare. There is no mystery here.
And there is no struggle with the fossil record, only in the minds of those desperate to force it into an ancient model of thought.
I have read the Bible. Please consider reciprocating and read a decent modern biology textbook. Base your ideas on evolutionary theory on what the theorists actually think rather than on the half-baked rantings on some fundamentalist christian website.
And the Bible doesn't answer all of the questions in detail because they didn't exist when it was written. Jesus himself had a lot of positive things to say aboiut the way that human beings should treat each other. The rest is just myth and legend; smoke and mirrors.
May I ask one simple question without hopefully angering anyone? Most people that have posted have at one point or other made a stand as to how they believe. I have myself, several times, stated that I belive in a Creator (not necessarily the exact way Genesis is written, see XC's statement above)
and in Evolution that continues to this very day. Others have stated no Intelligent Design, just Evolution, period. Some have stated Creationism only. Fine. Isn't this horse dead enough yet? We keep beating on it with the same round-robin of arguments like it's going to get up and walk. It's fossilized by now from being buried in the retoric of cessless arguments. If you are happy with what you believe, stick to it like glue. But in all reality, this has been argued for years with no end in sight. With that in mind, and still standing firm on what I believe, which in no way affects my friendship with those with opposing views, I'm going to bow out now, keeping my dignity intact. Good luck to everyone and may you find your own answers to the question a rock to stand on and be proud to defend. Pendragon, always a friend to anyone and everyone who needs a friend... :nod:
ust sharing what I think.
The bible story is a poem. A wonderful poem written by a man trying to grasp what we all try to grasp. The stanza is repeated in poetic effect. "and the evening and the morning were the ..... day" Listen closely and hear him cry out in awe at what his soul has apprehended. There are thousands of these poems in the bible and religious texts all over the world. This is an example of the heart speaking to the mind. The science is poor, the world here just appeared... magic... but it is of no consequence. A deeper need is being expressed.
Science is not the same thing. Science is based on evidence. If you postulate the existance of a creator, then you must be able to perform a test, an experiment, to prove the hypothesis. You need to find direct evidence ot the creator. Not indirect evidence like creationism or intelligent design attempts to do. In law it would be called circumstancial evidence. Science is the study of nature. God is supernatural ... beyond nature... not scientifically testable... Evolution is a theory or nature, hypothesis with evidence to support it. However more than anything else evolution is a discovery. There is a dynamic for change. Would you honestly believe that an intellegent being would create a static unchanging place? Would you? If you believe in God... it is simply a choice and nothing more, be at peace with it... then is it possible that evolution was built into the natural world by the supernatural inventor as a natural mechanism for change. Hmmm new hypothesis. No evidence. Does it matter? At the most fundimental level we don't understand life. We have studied the mechanics very well. The chemicals interact according to the patterns written in the dna and in complete accord with natural law. When however a cell dies what is missing? The chemicals are present, the RNA, DNA, water are all still there at the moment of death. The mechanism stops. Sometimes it stops because something in the mechanism is broken. Like a car that has been drive too many miles. Sometimes not. What force, energy, compulsion has gone? where has it gone. We still don't know.
So my hebrew friend and I both cry out where did you go my friend? Why have you left me? What truely were you anyway? Who may I petition to understand? Evolution is science. It simply says this is what we have observed to support our speculation. This is the mechanism of nature. The mechanics of biology. If you believe in God doesn't this make it all more amazing than ever? If you study science you will be compelled to the same level of awe as the hebrew poet. You will then understand the meaning of a truely religuous experience. Ask John Glen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
This forum is a microcosm of the world. The arguing never stops completely... I wish people would "stop beating the horse" though. It won't happen until some dramatic, solid proof proves one belief and one only.
*sigh* another thread, like ones in forums i previously had joined...another argument...another debate...another winding road to nothingness...
::looks at the smoking wreckage and dead bodies which lie upon the intellectual battleground:...yeah, we're done here. I'm calling a draw, anybody disagree?
SHGQuote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
WTF? Smoke and mirrors, your comment here doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the enitre bible is smoke and mirrors? Or the old testament? or just Genesis? Because to state that its just smoke and mirrors would be extremely ignorant of you. Because, by saying that your saying that, Sodom and Gommorah didn't exist, yet they've found the plains where they were, which I might add still don't grow anything on them due to salt, brimstone, and sulphur impacts in the ground.
Or that King David didn't exist, or that Solomon was a fictional character? How can you possibly state this, when old records of other histories are showing the bible to be historically accurate?
Didn't Xerxes exist, and rule the persian empire? Didn't he fight the Greeks, and was defeated.
Are you saying then that the Greek histories are all fairy tales, smoke and mirrors?
You cannot possibly state, (without looking like a very ignorant person) that the bible isn't based on historical fact, because it has been proven through the ages, again, and again that it is both historically accurate, and well detailed for a book of its time.
Shaking my head at you XGM.
Something YOU ALL NEED TO REMEMBER ABOUT GENESIS! Is that the book of Genesis was created and written by the largest contributor to the old Testament, MOSES, and that Moses merely wrote Genesis as a quick summary of the things that had happened so far.
Hence the lack of great details, like what Adam was wearing, what he looked like, how big Eves bust size was, yadi yah yah, don't appear in the book of Genesis.
Moses was catching up on thousands of years of human history, simply stating to the followers of Israel, this is what happened so far in order, and its signifigance to the Israelites.
Adam's line begat Noah, Noah's line begat Abraham, Abraham's line begat Israel, Israels children = Present day Jews, so on and so forth.
And as for it being a fairy tale, I'd like to remind you that almost every culture no matter how primitive even by todays standards, has a story of a great flood, and many also have tales about the first man, who as I've read was born from mud, spittle mixed in dirt, tear drops mixed with dust, and has had such wonderous names as Adam, Adamus, Adamanti, Eman, Amani, Oman.
Yet even more amazing is that all of these different cultures have had absolutely no pyshical interaction with Jews, Christians, Moslems, or any other culture that follow Genesis as truth.
So, how exactly do you explain the co-incedences of different mythologies and histories, not contradicting the biblical theory yet supporting it?
As for my views on evolution, I refuse to waste my precious time constantly arguing about something to people who won't believe a word, (won't even consider my arguements,) I say, regardless of how knowledgeable it is. Such is human nature. So I say this, lets agree to disagree, and those are my final thoughts on the subject.
Take care everybody.
Shizz.
"Bye bye daddy, have a wonderful day." Perfect Prudence.
I was preparing a long rebuttal of most of what you posted Thzng. But why bother. Search any of the subjects you mention above on Wikipedia, or try the Encyclopaedia Britannica at your local library, if you consider wiki too biased. Either way, you'll get a more balanced view of all the possible interpretations than from your friendly neighbourhood christian propoganda site.
One thing I'll point out for free though - Brimstone is Sulphur.
;) XC