 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Creation v Evolution
|
|
|
Subject: Go to part 2, dangit!!! From: kendall Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:49 PM Debbles advocate...you sound like a writer for Monty Python!!
Mousethief said it so well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:18 PM Post here, or I swear I'll write another dumb song. (See mousethief - I read your posts too.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: domenico Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:11 PM Biskit, as an artist, I cannot deny beauty, nor can I deny the beauty in chance, as I've been practicing it all the time. One does not need to say "Today, I will create *x*". *X* happens, and nature is definitely the most accomplished artist in that field. You can ascribe a higher power if you must, but nature is Chaos and chance, and its results are stunning, I'll not deny it. Mario, I thank you for being the first voice that *I* have heard along those lines, and I'm glad to know there are more out there. I've been around, and was raised through (by virtue of schooling, mentors or church attendance) damn near every facet of the Western Christian spectrum, including Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Re-Organized Mormons, Catholics, and good 'ol New Ager/Unitarian/Insert-Progressive-Term-Here types. On average, people are either of the non-committal "I've got my faith and that's all that matters" bend, or of the rabid, frothing "God created Adam, Darwin be DAMNED!" persuasion. I am THANKFUL that there are people who can vocally accept both in tandem, and that was my point of this post, was to offer that bone for people to chew. As to Mr. Handy, there are certain things that can be witnessed testifying to nature's inherent changes. Even looking through as little as 3 generations, we're taller, faster, stronger, fatter, women are mestruating sooner, etc... Now, people may be quick to say "Diet!", "Healthcare!", or "Peace!", and the answer is of course, a resounding "No sh$#%@, Shirlock!" These are factors that change who we are, and we have been reacting to stimulus/circumstances since the dawn of time. Warming climates?, less fur, less meat?, more greens, more greens?, less disease, less disease?, more population... flat teeth win cool climate?, plants die... need meet, Grog of pointy teeth chew on furry critter, Grog live through ice age, Grog's kid have pointy teeth too, maybe he live, too.... Lastly, there are many evidences to where we came from, and including the DNA Penny mentioned, our bodies have collections of parts that no longer are used, such as wisdom teeth and various internal glands and organs, and the most beautiful example, the embryonic-fetal growth cycle, which take us from our most primitive smimming/gill breathing/tail flapping fish phases through our bi-pedal post-partum phases. To think of man as anything but an animal is naive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:10 PM Just to prove I do read your posts MouseThief, I will do... Jon (who even reads Bonnie's posts sometimes) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:07 PM John Hardly - how about the development of drug resistant microorganisms? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:06 PM This thread is too big! Please use this new thread to continue this conversation, and don't post to this one! Thanks!
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:52 PM Why Alex, I always read your postings, with a cute little mouse like that at the bottom, how could you not. I bet there are lots of people who read your postings and just sit back quietly taking in your thoughts. Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:42 PM Thanks, John! (I was beginning to wonder if anybody had even read my post!)
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:34 PM Mousethief, thanks for the post, you said it better than I could have. Jed at work, The reason the damn neandertal<<<-----------see! funny joke)creation people don't just butt the hell out is that they pay equally for the school. But I am pretty sure that if they remain insistant they will be shown the door--history is pretty clear on that count. Domenico, How have you witnessed evolution in your life time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:19 PM Didja' ever notice that what you eat affects the color of your pee? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:12 PM Oh Yeah, By the way Little Hawk,I AM NOT A GOD!You maybe a lesser God,I don't know.All I know for sure is I am not. I mean Man, thats way to much pressure, It's hard enough to muddle through this life without screwin' somethin' up. without havin' to be responsible for Famine,drought,pestulance(sp) see there I'm not even sure of the spelling of it you think I want to be responsible for (IT)!!??!and a whole bunch of other things that are seen as wrong with this world?? I Think NOT! I'll just stay with the course I'm on.-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: MMario Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:11 PM grumpy smurf/domenico... you say "I have yet to hear a Christian voice state what to me should be the most obvious choice of paths.... "God created the big bang!" " on the contrary - there are a number of sunday school educational sets out there that profess exactly that; I was raised to see no conflict with creation and the scientific explanations of the univers (the theories never do explain where that first jolt/monobloc/whatever comes from) I taught from educational materials that illustrated the seven days of creation using galaxy formation and evolution as part of the wonder of the creator's universe. AND I might add, that these materials have existed for a MINIMUM of three decades, have been in use at least that long and are still in use. Christian and Creationism are not synonyms |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:00 PM Now get off your butts and go to it.
~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:43 PM It's no small wonder your Grumpy,...Smurf You think all this happened by accident???Take a drive, you're certainly in the right geographical area, Drive up to Point Reyes an watch the sunset,walk among the redwoods around Bodega. While you're there be quiet,quiet your mind Brother,and listen with your heart. Then come back and tell me it was all an accident.Peace"through understanding"-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:31 PM Clinton was referring to the song by Brian McNeil. OK...and now for something completely ridiculous. I don't know if anyone has thought this one up already. Probably. How about Earth as a prison colony?
Come and hear my story, lads, I will tell to you no lie, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: domenico Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:26 PM For what it's worth, here in the Good 'ol land of granola-chewin'-tree-chainin' Be-Z-erkely California, many of us hold onto a simple philosophy.... Creationism is a belief, Evolution is a fact. You can witness evolution in your own lifetime, whereas the choice to believe in Creationism is wholly owned by you. I have yet to hear a Christian voice state what to me should be the most obvious choice of paths.... "God created the big bang!" This would be the most sensible apporoach to the whole thing, leaving those that need to have faith in a higher power alone to chant their mantra, count their beads, burn their incense, kiss their snakes, or what have you, insert-ritual-here, and the rest of us can have our children raised in an informed, well rounded manner, leaving their decisions on faith to be answered by their heart, and nobody elses.... "Argghh, I hate the midwest!" -Grumpy Smurf, Retired Miscreant- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:17 PM In responce to Clinton Hammond, who said: "There's no gods And precious few heros" I say that there are many gods (all of us), and we are ALL heroes...just for coming here in the first place and taking on this reality. I understand what Clinton means, however...he is simply looking at the other side of the paradox. "You're right from your side and I'm right from mine" - Bob Dylan said that. LH
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jed at Work Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:06 PM agreed Greg. As some have already pointed out, there are many wonderful and meaningful stories about where we came from and why we're here ... it seems nearly every human that has walked the earth has heard a story from his culture that addresses these issues. Why is the creationist story the only opposing perspective? I suspect that the creationists simply mistake the envelope for the message. And this has also been said, but I think it bears repeating; creation need not conflict with evolution. For me, the book of Genesis (my culture's story) is all about who we are, as humans ... it sets the tone for what our role is and describes our relationship to God and each other. The 'creation facts' the story uses are the envelope. The challenge to bring purpose to our lives, is the message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:59 PM OK, gang, some of you have made it clear you know enough about the universe to decide everything and manage it excellently. Now get off your butts and go to it. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jed at Work Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:42 PM good points, Kendal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Greg F. Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:37 PM No good reason I know of, Jed, but it happens all the time. Question is, why do we ALLOW it to happen? :-) Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jed at Work Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:26 PM Creation v Evolution? Those are my only two choices? We don't teach Santa Claus, Wed don't teach the Easter Bunny in our schools, but there are valuable cultural lessons surrounding some of those characters ... why would anyone teach creationism? If it offends someone's personal religious perspetcive, they do not need to attend the public institution that teaches the modern understandig of life's origins. They can remove themselves from the society that teaches a contrary perspective and teach their own perpectives within their own community. Why would a small minority dictate to the majority, and why should their narrow perspective be allowed to dilute the edcuation of the majority? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:25 PM Dear Debbils Advocate, You may be watchin' a little to much of the sci fi channel,I prescribe an evening walk, somewhere far away from vehicular emissions. Live Long and Prosper,-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:16 PM Jeri, I don't think that "Lucy" was ever considered to be that missing link but I stand to be corrected on that. There was the famous missing link one which proved to be a hoax, using bones of both humans and apes. I think it was called the Piltdown Man. Another problem that I have with religion is that there appear to be noticible peoriods of activity followed by inactivity - how's about the Star in Bethlehem was a space ship? Jon (possibly being slightly outrageous but interested to read any comments). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:57 PM Oh Geezus on a pogo schtick! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST,Debbil's Advocate Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:50 PM Pox on both yer houses, ya silly ninnies. Anyone who has delved into the real evidence is forced ineluctably to come up with the plain conclusion that the entire planet was a gigantic pound, where genetic engineering experiments once used to gain social points by high-toned matrons of the first Galactic Confederation as conversation pieces were dumped when they were no longer the latest and greatest thing.
They used to just ship them to the incinerator but a big bleeding heart movement formed up somewhere on one of the outer planets and gradually made enough noise to stimulate legislation; as a result, the fashion-statement du jour of the patronized genetic artist could no longer just be offed in a ray-beam -- they had to set up a very expensive dump which took a lot of money. Fortunately the Confederation was still prosperous back then and could afford the terraforming expenses. So this whacky argument is settled now. It was no more an act of God than the Bronx housing developments. It was engineered by a bunch of artsy-fartsy genetic-engineering artists for their affluent patrons, creating poetic "statements" for rich salons out of biomass, fusion tools, and some really slick software applications. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:38 PM Well said Kendall, I reserve the right to question everything!I also BELIEVE that God is pissed off about all those folks being murdered in the name of God. I just had a really vivid picture of Mel Brooks and Gregory Hines Tap Dancin' across the stage and singin':the inquisition...-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: sophocleese Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:13 PM Read that first as punctured equilibrium MMArio, caused me a giggle.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: MMario Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:49 PM "punctuated equilibrium" is the phrase I have heard, and that makes the most sense to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: kendall Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:45 PM I also belief that Jesus is "The Christ" he represtents the path to God. I'm not sure if he is the ONLY path. On a lighter note...if Kipling was right, One Blood..if its all the same, How come there are no Swedes in the Mafia? (Archie Bunker) We are like the Three Stooges, none of know much for sure, but that doesnt stop us from acting like we know everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:42 PM Sorry woke up in a bad mood yesterday Not helped by hearing on the news of the Human Rights Act (comes into force today in England), a Church of England spokesperson was reported as saying the act may come into conflict with the teachings of the church. I jumped to the coclusion that this was directed at the contentious issue of homosexuality which the CoE still cannot reconcile . So I apologise for upsetting anyone, your beliefs, my beliefs are all valid and equal so lets have equal rights. Wrong thread for this I know Roger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:36 PM Kendall, There has been persecution of one group or another since Og, and Tonk (the cavedudes) were pitchin' rocks at each other! Personally, I don't know for sure, and sometimes I have doubts,..because I am human, and have a mind, and freedom of choice.But I believe I'll follow the path of J.C. as best as I can, being kind, and a man of peace,and prone to daily meditation,cannot be a bad way to spend ones life. And in the end,(if indeed there is an end), there is nothing else. Why! I've lost nothing. But on the other hand, If I choose not to believe, and what the "Word" says is true,I'll have lost paradise. If you don't believe in Something, You'll fall for anything! peace"through understanding"-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Metchosin Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM to add another variable, cataclysmic evolution as opposed to or along side of gradualism, is now back on the front burner. Interesting, considering the vilification that Velikovsky received from both sides of the debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Penny S. Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:52 PM The evidence for evolution does not only lie in the fossil record, which is incomplete, but in DNA, which reveals the commonality of living things - Kipling's one blood - and the relatedness of species. If there were a separate creation of each type of creature, then why make it look as if there weren't, which is what genetic evidence does? If the creatonists are right, they raise an appalling question about the nature of a god who would have created an immense puzzle, in which all the pieces point those who search for truth in the direction of a lie. I do not believe God to be like that. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:46 PM Praise, I had heard that saying a little different. I think it was Amilia Airheart who said..... 'The truth will set you free but first is will piss you off' LN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:39 PM The relationship between funamentalist or evangelical Protestant Christianity on the one hand and Evolution on the other is very specific to certain occurrences in both science and theology in the 19th century. It's nearly fruitless to try to understand the "circle the wagons" mentality of anti-evolutionists nowadays without studying how things came to this pass. There is a very good book on this subject -- "Without God, Without Creed" by James Turner, which has shaded all my thoughts on the subject. Anyway, the main idea of the book is that with the rise of modern science, preachers tried to move away from the older way of approaching religion (e.g. we believe this because it is what was handed down to us) to a new, more scientific way of approaching religion (e.g. we believe this because it "makes sense" of the world as we find it). But then when mechanistic evolution threw out the "God hypothesis" in the 19th century, certain theologians found the foundation they had been standing on for over 100 years suddenly disappearing from beneath them. This gives rise to the hatred and fear of evolution -- not because it disproves God, necessarily, but because it takes the wind out of the sails of the sort of "rational religion" that was popular in the mid-19th century. (Which, coincidentally, is when the literalist reading of Genesis first rose to prominence!) Of course not all theologians had based their understanding of religion on science; some had held to older models; some had developed newer models that were not so dependent upon science. Both these strains have continued to do just fine, and to some extent the former adherents of the "rational religion" school have jumped into one or another of these camps. But some have been unable to make the transition, and for them evolution is seen as a threat to their religion, to be fought at any cost. Since this is what (to at least some extent) is going on in the evolution/creationism "debate," it is highly unlikely that either side is ever going to convince the other of its own correctness. It's not really a "debate" at all but more like a lobbing of word-bombs back and forth between two very entrenched armies (if you'll excuse the military metaphor). FWIW, I am a Christian believer, and am agnostic on the topic of trans-species evolution.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:13 PM Neo, this one follows-- another comment du jour, which I uttered this morning spontaneously, for the benefit of staff and anyone else within spiritshot-- "The truth will set you free. *G* It will also get you into a lot of hot water." ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: bbelle Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:49 AM Jeri ... yes "Lucy" was considered the missing link. I worked with the paleontologist who discovered "Lucy." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: kendall Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:29 AM Guest.. I believe in God, and, I must believe in evolution because it is right before my eyes. The problem is, we lack the intellect to understand the whole picture. Its like the fable of the 3 blind men describing an elephant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:07 AM Oh I really like that advice Praise. 'Love and truth are never far apart' When I look for one and find the other at the same time, I know I am onto something big. I figure whatever give meaning is the right answer. Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST,Praise who needs a cookie! Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:00 AM Down with ***ism! May Truth beset ***ists! Pick your poison, and find an antidote. LOVE AND TRUTH ARE NEVER FAR APART. When looking for one, it's a good idea to look for the other too. They have a way of subverting what you think if you leave one out of your figuring. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Wesley S Date: 02 Oct 00 - 10:44 AM God created evolution. Teach them both and let the students decide for themselves { the point of going to school is to teach people to think for themselves isn't it??}. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: katlaughing Date: 02 Oct 00 - 10:16 AM Jeri, I have that book, it is excellent. Have you tried www.bibliofind or www.bookfinder? One of them should have it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:54 AM Jon, I think the vast majority of people have found a way to mesh religious beliefs and scientific theories. When I was young and in Sunday school, I was taught that the way the creation was explained in the bible was figurative/symbolic. In other words "On the first day..." simply meant "first." Creationalist fundamentalists say there is no symbolism, and take the whole thing literally. "If he said 'day,' he meant 'day." I wish I could find the book "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. A different science altogether, but I remember in it he said something about the facts and scientific conclusions doing more to prove the existance of God than to disprove it. I don't know why science and religion have to be in competition. It doesn't make any sense at all to claim fact is fiction or that facts disprove anything but dogma. As far as missing links, we're finding new fossilized creatures all the time. I'm not sure exactly when the science of archaelology began, but we haven't been digging things up for very long. The fact we haven't found something yet doesn't prove it doesn't exist. We only have pieces of some creatures, or we may only have found one of them. The fact we haven't discovered something doesn't mean it doesn't exist - especially when an historical chain of events leads to the probability that it does. The theory of evolution explains how man got from one stage to the other, and there is plenty of evidence supporting that theory. It's logical to believe the same thing continued. Question: Wasn't 'Lucy' considered 'the missing link' at one time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:50 AM "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. But what really frosts my butt is my children being forced by humanist teachers to study the Theory of Gravity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Mrrzy Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:40 AM Who was it who had no need for the God hypothesis? And moonjen, I could use a fourth for bridge if you ever break out of your hearts game (no JoD for me, thanks). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Grab Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:21 AM Sure, scientists working on evolution theory have stuff they can't explain. There's some wierd shit out there, mainly cos genetic mutations are random and hence unpredictable - also, being random, there's the possibility of the same mutation occurring spontaneously in 2 different places, which'd screw up your time-line good style. The thing is, no scientist ever says they know everything about a field. Science is about investigating, checking that what you think is happening is actually happening, etc. Think Newton vs. Einstein - Newton's theory was fine for most stuff, but it broke down at high speeds. Einstein produced a better version which explained the time-lapse as you speed up, but there's still stuff in there which isn't answered yet, even 80 years later after the attention of dozens of super-genius physicists. Someday, someone will solve it, and then there'll most likely be another puzzle inside that to solve. It's like the old saying - inside every small problem is a large problem waiting to get out. The deeper you dig, the more complex you find the universe is. But the key is that scientists are prepared to dig, find out stuff, think up new theories to explain them, and ditch old theories if they don't give a good enough explanation (or if they're proven to be just plain wrong). The moment anyone says, "Well, it's obvious, it's God, there's nothing we can do about it, and we shouldn't meddle with His handiwork", they may as well go back to their cave and chant to the Big Light In The Sky. Belief in God is fine - I personally believe in God (although not in Christianity) - but the moment someone insists that theoretical reasoning and dogma MUST take precedence over provable evidence, they've stopped being a reasoning being. They've proved that they're not capable of thinking for themselves - and why should we take notice of someone incapable of rational thought? Think back to the Greeks, the masters of intellectual argument. Lacking the ability to carry out complex experiments, their theories into physical phenomena threw up some bizarre theories and paradoxes - the proof that the tortoise can always avoid the arrow is just one (Xeno's paradox?). Or even in our times, think of Freud's conclusions which sum up roughly as "women don't find pleasure in sex, therefore there must be something wrong with the women". If pure theory doesn't match with the real world, the problem is with the theory, not with the world! :-) The moment you introduce the possibility of an infinitely powerful God into calculations, working anything out becomes impossible. As soon as you find something you can't immediately explain, it's obvious that it's God at work, not some physical phenomena which you've not thought about but could conceivably solve with some serious thought. The Deus Ex Machina may have a simplicity to it, but simplistic solutions are only suitable for children - the real world is complex, and hiding from it is not a solution. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: JulieF Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:58 AM The idea of a missing link is has largely been bypassed as what we have is a common ancestor which in recent years has been pushed further and further back ( chronologically) Julie Ps I've never tried to use evolution to deny the existence of God - you would always be countered by - he set it up and knew where it would end argument. I favour the Bable fish argument over the non existence of God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:37 AM Kendall, you seem to me to be in favour of evolution it's scientific base. I would be happy to accept evoloution if there were not so many gaps. Why is it that the "missing link" for example can not be found and that there appear to have been sudden changes with no intermedite stages? It is OK to believe science and follow the evidence but if you follow the evidence and were a true scientist, you would have to acknowledge these gaps. IMO, the sad point of all this is that the "Evoloutioninsts" try to use their arguments to disproove any possible existance of a God and visa-versa. Why is it that so few people are capable of considering combinations of factors? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Mooh Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:21 AM 'Spaw. The Leafs, created and evolved, playin' who? Oh yeah, another new team, just what we need to make mediocre teams look good. Go Leafs Go! Mooh. |