I like the second one but the first one I've seen as "the only animal that blushes - or needs to." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Printable View
I like the second one but the first one I've seen as "the only animal that blushes - or needs to." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I do believe you are correct! How embarassing! And my favorite author... :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
If you will recall, I've always said that I fully intend to be fair, if I am nothing else. I made a compelling case about how cross-breeding animals resulted in larger, stronger beasts, but they came out infertile and could not reproduce. Examples would be the mule and the liger.
I recentlly learned of a natural cross-breeding that happens among bears; specifically polar and grizzley bears. It doesn't happen often, and I woundn't want to run into one of these babies, but it seems they are fertile, and can reproduce. The only reason we don't have a new species of bear is because I guess two of the opposite sex have not yet managed to meet. So it seems that in certain cases, a new species can and will develop given time. We may see this one during my own lifetime, who knows?
Boy, here's a thought. What if the polar bear fancies a Kodiak as a mate? That would be getting back to the old Cave Bear size!
So you see, when I find something interesting to pass along even if it shoots down one of my ideas, I am not slow to say that I was wrong. Who really knows what's out there anyway? God bless. ;)
I'm of the mind that creationism, and the evolution of whatever was created are two totally different things. Big bang, I don't buy it. That all these factors came together in our vast and possibly infinite universe and lined up by sheer happenstance to form a planet where we can even survive, and yet I can't manage to guess the lottery numbers...it's just a bit much for my mind to grasp.
After reading all the arguments, I'm going to wait until the movie comes out before I make a firm decision either way.
I went on another forum and I saw this guy who made a brilliant point. He said that humans have more vertebrae than apes. So if apes evolved into humans, they would have to evolve more vertebrae. I don't know how this could happen through random mutation, but if it did, it would be incredibly painful for the ape-men. They wouldn't be able to defend themselves properly or get enough food, and probably would have died out through natural selection.
Also, if life spontaneously arose from the dirt, how would this happen? One possible explanation is this experiment. One guy ran electrical current through what he thought was the primitive earth's atmosphere and got amino acids, the precursors to life. The only problem? He didn't use the right atmosphere. What happens if you run the same experiment with the right atmosphere that a primitve earth would have had? You get cyanide. :lol:
As a boy in elementary school I went though years of not searching for any religion, but trying to find human-centered psychic power, etc. I had great fears and melancholy, but these in no way had any bearing on my becoming a Christian. I agreed that it was the worst tragedy to wish there were GOD and not find HIM at the end of our lives. I didn't know what to do, but I in no way found solace in telling myself I believed in GOD so lond as a shadow of a doubt oppressed my heart. I sometimes cried myself to sleep as accepting the then seeming likeliness of nothing but a nihilistic hope at best. I also had a sense of GOD at times, but as something I didn't want to rest on just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
One day, when my family were beginning, at a neighbor's invitation, to go to protestant "services" (the sect actually did a great disservice to their members, trying to prevent direct Communion with GOD), I stayed home and turned my attention to lust. This was a regular Sunday theme for me, until, one day, without any input from my family, nor from any other human, I, who had thought of GOD (when I wasn't having an agnostic soul pang) as a universe away, and coldly remote, suddenly percieved HIM near, and heard HIS very Words to me. I then, at age 11, cast off my lust from myself, and never had an agnostic moment ever again. It was because I now peacably knew GOD to be real that I had no room in my heart for an empty existence apart from HIM. In a short time, I had such Faith in HIM, that, when my little sister's tongue split upon falling against something, after initially freaking out over all the blood she was choking on, suddenly decided not to call an ambulance, and believed she would be healed at once by GOD.
I placed my hand upon the little toddler, commanded her tongue to go back together at once, in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST, begged the HEAVENLY FATHER to please make this work right away, and recited the Words from Isaiah the Prophet, "By HIS Stripes we are healed". I didn't see at first that it had worked. I turned in disappointment and was intent on rushing into another room to shout at GOD in great anger for not honoring the Faith that told me a Healing was meant then to occur. I had only taken steps about a meter away when suddenly the loud voices in the room took on a new ambience of emotion. I turned quickly to see what I had just sensed, and everyone were shouting for Joy, no longer in a panick. The baby's tongue was no longer injured, and the others excitedly told me they had seen the tongue while it mended!
I also have a nonreligious witness to the fact that his broken finger completely healed in just over 2 minutes from when it was first broken, retaining not so much as a bruise, at our workplace. He thought over it for days, trying to figure out if something other than GOD had healed him on the instant, when I had just happened to be there to pray for him. He said that he couldn't think of an answer as good as that GOD had done it, but that his feelings of fear to raise his hopes are so great that they seem greater than logic to him.
Before I knew GOD to be real, as I now do, I did not think that things were all important. Only good people and sacrificing for them.
As people have stated before the theory of evolution doesn't really contradict with intelligent design. I believe in creationism but I don't see much wrong with evolution unless it is the only basis and tries to stand on its own. The moral and ethical implications of doing so are huge. To take words from Darwin himself
In regards to the post by Xamonas Chegwe I am forced to disagree.Quote:
"The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are convictions in such a mind?"
I would say that nothing really matters if you take on a naturalistic viewpoint and leave no room for God. You live, you die, nothing happens after. So...why does it matter what you did in between A and B? If it felt good at the moment its good right?Quote:
If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.
God is Evolution
Explain Yourself
Do you mean that God invented evolution, or that evolution is a kind of god?
I'm just wondering, because only one of those positions makes even the slightest bit of sense.
By referring to the theory of Evolution, might I just clarify that by accepting that theory, we are also saying that we agree man descended and evolved from apes?
I also thought I could point out, if anyone cared to really read up and notice, evolutionism might be a theory that scientists can prove with evidence while seemingly, creationism is based solely on Faith and the Bible alone, but there are also evidences that goes against the basis of evolution itself. We should not ignore them, no?
And no, i don't think the Big Bang theory is part of Creationism.
Yes, although you might further clairify that by 'ape' you mean something that, if you saw it, you would call it an ape. We did not evolve from modern gorillas, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao
There is no convincing evidence that contradicts evolution that I have ever seen. If you were to find, say, a complete human skeleton in Cambrian rock, that would blow the entire theory straight out of the water, but nobody has done that yet. The idea of 'irrudcible complexity', for example, is not evidence against the theory of evolution, because it is not physical evidence, and because it can be shown how supposedly irrudcibly complex structures might have evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao
Two questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
1.) Didn't Darwin use the term "common ancestor" in describing how man and apes evolved?
2.) You use the term "complete skeleton". How much of evolution is based solely upon a single skull, and in some cases, fragments of a single skull? Are you saying this is poor evidence? You need a complete skeleton? Many fossil creatures are missing parts. Does this prove the creature did not exist? I have stated before that a single skull indicates that there was one creature like that, but you cannot of necessity infer a race. Perhaps the creature was an oddity. It happens often enough. Just thinking. ;) :nod:
Yes, and that is exactly what I am trying to say. We have a common ancestor with modern apes, and if you saw it, you would probably say that it was an ape or a monkey. I mention it because when somebody asks me why monkeys and apes still exist if we evolved from monkeys and apes, I have to strongly resist the urge to yell at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
A femur would do it, but a complete human skeleton would be a whole lot better. It was just an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Hey, XC, you think I should totally confuse the poor man now? Cuppajoe, it may surprise you to learn that I believe in both creationism and evolution. The first to start the engine, the second to keep it running and develop finished products along the way. So I never discount science, or their discoveries, although I may question them; nor do I discount creation, though I have questions about the hows and timeline. I do not believe time as we count it began until creation was completed. Which leaves a large gap in the timeframe, so I have no doubt the Earth is very old. ;)
Not particularly. I know many people who believe that, and believed it myself for quite some time. A reasonably educated believer would most have to come to that conclusion eventually, as the theory that species evolve is about as much in doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon