 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Creation v Evolution Part II
|
|
|
Subject: Creation v Evolution Part II From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:03 PM The old thread is full - please use this one.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:07 PM Thanks, Lil Neo, for the kind words.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:25 PM Domenico says "to think of man as anything but an animal is naive." Actually when you compare man to the other animals, to think we're just like them is a little naive. None of the other animals are sitting around their computers writing about whether their species is just another species. Some wag once said, "I'll worry more about animal rights then the flesh-eating animals put together a committee to talk about the rights of their human victims." Although I do not condone unnecessary animal suffering, I think there is a qualitative difference between humans and the so-called "lower" animals and can't imagine how some cannot see this! Truly man is an animal (what else? vegetable? mineral?). But obviously so much more.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:26 PM Just wanted to reassure you that I too read your posts MT. Generally I either have no idea what you're talking about or I'm bored stiff, but I DO read them nonetheless. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:28 PM What about spirits, MouseThief? I don't know how one could ever prove it one way or other but I certainly believe there is far more to us than just the body. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: domenico Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:28 PM Sorry I was a bit slow on the thread swap. I think I summed up all responses to me right here. Ugh.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:31 PM Well Mousethief, I know some men who are truly animals. LN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:32 PM Jon: I wasn't really going to go into HOW we are different from the so-called "lower" animals. That's a whole 'nother can of worms that could get us into all sorts of shouting about my spirituality is better than your spirituality and all that, which I was actually trying to avoid. But I do stand by my statement that there is a qualitative and not just a quantitative difference between humankind and the other species on the planet. spaw: Um, thanks, I think. :-P
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:35 PM Actually, LN, if you are thinking about people who commit acts of cruelty and shame, then none of the lower animals are really capable of such a thing. Most if not all of their actions are determined by survival and reproduction (and to a lesser extent such things as play), and they lack whatever it is that humans have that enables us to be either angels... or devils.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:38 PM No Alex, actually I was just thinking about some dates I had been on in the past. LN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: domenico Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:43 PM Mousethief, I will agree with you in that we are definitely a breed apart. I think we could probably agree that the difference is cognitive thought, and I've always stood by the "Malice implies forethought" standard of thinking. Man's capacity for evil is inspired by his very talent that sets him apart from the other critters (the ages old tale of "man being able to decide good from evil" comes to bear). I don't think my cat is thinking anything other than "Wow! Look at what happens to the rat when I swat 'em this way..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: John Hardly Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:51 PM Jeri, I may be wrong but I don't think the microbiology to which you refer points necessarily to evolution. It doesn't result in a new and different species. That's not a small point if true. I suppose I'm a bit of a pessamist because, though I believe that differing objectively held beliefs can live together in peace, I'm afraid they won't. That's why I think Jesus taught his followers to choose their battles wisely, only fight for what is really essential, and GO DOWN LOVING. I'm not sure that Christians fighting in the publicly held square for creationism is a wise battle to choose. I'd rather hope to lay down my life as a Bonhoffer--a battle worth fighting. Don't get me wrong, I think one's views on creation or lack thereof are important, just not the best way to show the very core of what we believe--love. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: hesperis Date: 02 Oct 00 - 07:21 PM Is mankind truly "more" than animal kind? Sure, we have a capacity for greatest good, because of our abilities in thinking, building, and adapting, but so many of us do not live up to that promise... If the animals were in charge of the earth, I think we would not be facing (running away from, whatever) our environment and sociological crises. Many indigenous cultures see animals as the teachers of humanity. They are nearer to nature and therefore more innocent than we are. Of course, animals start acting wierd after experiencing famine, so maybe humans are just still feeling the results of the scarcity during the Ice Age... rather than truly 'doing evil' or 'sinning'. Acting out of scarcity is a sin, acting for ourselves alone, when our capacity for love has been blocked, is a sin. But are we truly more than animals? Is the caretaker more than the garden, or do they each need the other for completion? Can we live in partnership and true stewardship with Nature? I wish that it could be so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:21 PM domenico,you seem to be the only one working up a froth and trying to get everyone to think the way you think, I'm alright with how you think,for you. Tell me, when you smash your finger do you scream ,non exsistant entity damnit! That was awful but I'm gonna leave it there anyway When we look at the world we see different things,your ideas are no better than mine and mine are no better than yours.So relax and enjoy life while you can, after all this may be all there is,or not. peace"through understanding"-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Amos Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:39 PM We may not be more than "other" animals, but it doesn't take many brains to observe (1) that we eat a lot more of them than they of us and (2) we seem to have figured out how to corral them, and not the reverse and (3) the closest they come to the Sistine Chapel or "Prayer for My Duaghter" or "Tiger Tiger" or a Stradivarius is a conical pile of mud and straw or the remarkable but crude weave of the oriole's nest. And I have to wonder how many of them are multilingual? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: CarolC Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:00 PM And the smell, too, Spaw. (Asparagus, eeewww...) Amos, dogs are mulilingual. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Mbo Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:04 PM Just found and read "Prayer For My Daughter". Made me cry (not uncommon these days!). We should all be so lucky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: CarolC Date: 02 Oct 00 - 10:43 PM (And I'm not even unilingual. Should say "multilingual") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: raredance Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:37 PM Mockingbirds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Amos Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:52 PM Mockingbirds are mimics, not polyglots. Anyway, it is debatable whether all "animals" are of like ability or awareness. I've known horses smarter than some people. Or so it seemed. Within any class of anmals it has always seemed to me to be true, much as it is with humans, that the individual brings his own show to the body and some have a lot to say for themselves and others not. And, like humans, the livelier ones leave a clear, tangible vacuum when they drop the body. The issue of creativeness (as distinguished from creationaism) goes into much broader corners than this animals-are-people-too topic. A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Mbo Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:59 PM You know what the scientific nomenclature for Mockingbird is? Mimus polyglottus! All your kids brought up with Fred Rogers should know that one! Everybody sing! Troglodytese aeidon...you're my pet, you're my pet, you're my veeeeery special pet, trooooglodytese aeidooon!! --Matty R |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Lonesome EJ Date: 03 Oct 00 - 12:46 AM The writers of the Bible were people of imagination.They were not "logical thinkers". Was it their literal intention to suggest that Eve was fashioned from Adam's Rib? That all things that exist were crafted by the creator in seven 24 hour days?Remember,He didn't create the Sun until the Fourth Day. Somehow,I think the intention was to create an understanding through the painting of a picture,a parable if you will,like the ones Christ gave to his followers.The tale of the Prodigal Son did not have to be historically accurate to be of immense value: it showed his followers that no sinner was beyond redemption.When God created the "great whales and every living creature that moveth", does that broad statement not include the potential of triceratops and allosaurs? Or are the fossilized bones they left actually "the Remains of Angels" as some 18th Century scientific Christians proclaimed. I believe that these writers of this great book were people of imagination and creative power,very unlike the Christians of today who insist on the Bible's literal interpretation,people who cannot reconcile scientific facts to the rigid dogma of their belief,and by denying these facts,jeopardize the cedibility of the very faith they seek to glorify.My God is infinite in his power and wisdom,and willing to devote decades of evolution to the task of perfecting his creation: Man. We simply need to use the greatest of His gifts to us,our imagination, to gain the understanding that evolution IS creation in process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Biskit Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:09 AM Well Said L.EJ.-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: CarolC Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:35 AM Ever wonder why people like Jesus never write down their own words? I think that when you commit certain concepts to the written word, those concepts become imprisoned within the words, and they become static. To me, reality is too big to try to narrow down to a size that is small enough to fit into a discussion like this one. (Although I think that many of the people contributing to this thread have done a good job of expressing their viewpoints.) Best wishes, Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: CarolC Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:43 AM Mbo, "Ornitharincus Anaetinus, Anna, Anna, Anna...." (Don't know if I got the spelling right on that one. Can't find it in any of my books.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: BlueJay Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:19 AM Very well said, LEJ. I've always thought along similar lines. The lessons in the Bible are well worth the study, which is why it continues to be the best-selling book in the world. But I take exception with the folks who insist that mankind is only ten thousand years old in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even inspired by God, the writers of the Bible were unaware of modern science, and therefore unable to fix events accurately in geologic time. They did the best that they could, IMHO. Many events in the Bible have been discovered to be historically accurate. I admit this even though a skeptic. Perhaps even the Great Flood. This makes the Bible an invaluable historical document, not to mention some of the moral values it teaches. (Some parts of the Old Testament, I'm not so sure about, morally). LEJ, you mentioned that God created the sun on the fourth day. What's interesting is that this is after he created the Plants, which depend on light for photosynthesis. I think that if the folks who wrote the Bible had understood this, then the contradiction would not exist in the Bible. It would have been the other way around. Now, I've debated with folks who believe that there is no contradiction, that "God could have made the plants without light if he wanted to". I myself don't buy that. It implies a lack of planning on God's part. More likely is that the folks who wrote down this "beginning" did not understand the relation between plants and light. In any case, evolution certainly exists. American kids are gaining weight, while kids on the other side of the world are losing weight. Before long, we'll throw the earth off it's axis, all the hydrocarbons in our air will center over Antarctica and explode, sending us into a collision course with Mars, which will then be known as "The Really Red Planet". I'm not sure if all this agrees with "Revelations". Thanks for indulging me, BlueJay |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Lena Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:33 AM Amos.'Lower'animal spieces eat a lot less of us just because we invented coffins instead of checking corpes out in the mould to feed worms.Sorry to be crude,but worms feeding,then land fertilizing,then vegetarian animals eating from it,then ferals etc...it would make everithing a little bit more fair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Lena Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:38 AM How comes I always post twice?!It's getting some sort of trademark.As for the Evolution vs Creation thing...in the convent where I grew up,nobody had any problem during science lessons to explain the Creation in an Evolutionary way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: John Hardly Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:42 AM Bluejay, LEJ, I like what you have to say! For what it's worth, it's been pointed out to me that Genesis is clear that God created light before anything--it just didn't eminate from the sun--I know--your guess is as good as mine, but it does allow for photosynthesis (plantlife) and a logical order to creation. This was pointed out to me as a proof of Genesis accuracy, that people who didn't understand the science still got it right. The idea that an agricultural society didn't know that plants need light though is pretty doubtful. You don't have to understand much science to observe that. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: JulieF Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:43 AM Most recent work with animals tends to show how near we are. I think its 90% of our DNA that we share with chimps and other apes. Lots of work was done with chimps and language. The most fscinating thing that I saw recently was a experiment which taught pigs to play computer games. Julie Ps - so long and thanks for all the fish |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: CarolC Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:18 AM JulieF, It was Slarty Bartfarst worked on the fjords, wasn't it? Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: CarolC Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:24 AM Nice work, those fjords. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: MMario Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:49 AM 98 per cent genetic correlation with chimps - which makes most dna testing laughable when you realize it has a 2% error rate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Gary T Date: 03 Oct 00 - 09:13 AM I remember reading 94% correlation with chimpanzees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: JulieF Date: 03 Oct 00 - 09:54 AM Yes - Slarty Bartfarst did the fiords - he liked the crinkly edges. Julie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Jeri Date: 03 Oct 00 - 10:29 AM Lapse into irreverent humor: On the first day, God created the Earth, And he created heaven. I did Grimsby and Scunthorpe. I'm his brother, Kevin (From Les Barker. Too bad I didn't make it to the poetry HearMe. I shall now take my keyboard and hide behind an occasional table while I type the rest.) John Hardly, the bacteria I mentioned completed only a single change/genetic adaptation, and many are needed to become a new species. I don't know enough about bacteria to know if a new species has developed, or if anyone happened to be watching when it happened. In humans and animals the number of changes that occur before something can be called new species take hundreds of thousands of years. Most people seem to think one creature simply gives birth to a completely different creature, and that doesn't happen. With archeological evidence and humans, we have too many pieces of a chronological puzzle to logically say evloution didn't occur. Each change happened in a specific time period, and the changes were progressive. Lena, maybe you double-click on the "Submit Message" button? That would do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: mousethief Date: 03 Oct 00 - 10:50 AM LEJ, well said.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Kim C Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:19 AM I think that God created evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: MMario Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:24 AM I had a teacher once that said the greatest miracle of all was that god created a universe that didn't depend on miracles to explain everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: GUEST,Snotty Harbunkle Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:26 AM Kim, I think it was the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: wysiwyg Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:03 PM Hi Snotty, do you have any other Mudcat relatives? What about Miss Emily Weezlebum, if I have it spelt right? She a cousin o'yourn? Say hi for me if so. While you were posting I was writing this. It doesn't fully address your comment but maybe you will like it anyway. ~S~
THE LIVELIER ONES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: annamill Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM I see our great mental accomplishments as another evolutionary progression. We didn't develop great strength, or great hearing, or great sight, like some of the anumals did. We developed great mental capabilities to survive. If we hadn't, we'd be meat. We developed body covering, and housing, and farming to survive, else we'd be meat. I bet, if a lion could go this far, he'd look at us and say, poor creatures, no claws to catch meat, bad hearing, really poor eyesight. We should care for these poor helpless creatures, after all they do, in their own way add beauty to the world. Some come close to the beauty of the spider web, and some soar, almost as good as an eagle and they do go fast..of course not with the grace and beauty of a horse or cheetah. They do try and we must give them credit. We must try not to mind them trying constantly to kill us, it is the way of nature. They have to use guns, and automobiles, and poisons. What else do they have. Poor creatures. JMHO. Love, annamill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Scotsbard Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:35 PM Is there any valid reason that God (or the Gods?) could *not* have started this universe with a handful of quarks, or a big bang, or a vacuum fluctation, or whatever the theorists propose next? Given that basis, the real discussion involves whether God (or Gods) have interacted with the universe since then, and to what extent. Whether or not human actions affect God's (or Gods') hypothetical activities could also be discussed, but assuming that this entire universe was created just for humans seems incredibly arrogant. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: mousethief Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:45 PM I have yet to see anybody claim, either in print or in person, that the universe was created just for humans. This is a favorite red herring of people wishing to disprove theism, or to discredit others' beliefs, but I've never seen or heard it. Is there really anybody, anywhere out there, who believes this? Can anybody produce actual evidence?
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Penny S. Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:53 PM The universe is here because we are here to observe it. Anne Thropic, Principal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Lonesome EJ Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:04 PM Nice poem Praise. I would never say that God has created this universe just for humans.But we were given a gift to perceive the wonder of it.And we were given the ability to understand that the universe is not a mechanical construct,but an integral manifestation of its creator,wherein its physical laws demonstrate purpose,and not random event.We were also given Free Will to believe otherwise,if we wish. Allen Watts recalls an old Hindu story says that at first God was all.But in the passing eons of time He grew lonely,and decided to play a hiding game.He hid himself in the forms he created as stars,planets,trees,animals and men.He hid himself so well that He could no longer find Himself,and in time men knew only the guise of their own existence. But it is still the quest of each man to understand that he is an individual manifestation of the Creator,and that evrything else is as well.In the final assessment,the Hindu story is not so different than the Creation story told in Genesis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: NightWing Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:48 PM Here's a different point of view I stumbled across. This quote is from an article describing different ways of approaching the apparent gulf between a scientific viewpoint and a religious one. The quoted paragraphs below are the final two paragraphs. In essence, the author posits that faith in God *requires* evolution. "However, there may be an even deeper way in which faith in God nourishes the idea of evolution. The central idea of theistic religion, as the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner (among others) has clarified, is that the Infinite pours itself out in love to the finite universe. This is the fundamental meaning of "revelation." But if we think carefully about this central religious teaching it should lead us to conclude that any universe related to the inexhaustible self-giving love of God must be an evolving one. For if God is infinite love giving itself to the cosmos, then the finite world cannot possibly receive this limitless abundance of graciousness in any single instant. In response to the outpouring of God's boundless love the universe would be invited to undergo a process of self-transformation. In order to 'adapt' to the divine infinity the finite cosmos would likely have to intensify its own capacity to receive such an abounding love. In other words, it might endure what we now know scientifically as an arduous, tortuous and dramatic evolution. "Viewed in this light, the evolution of the cosmos is more than just 'compatible' with theism. Faith in a God of self-giving love, it would not be too much to say, actually anticipates an evolving universe. It may be very difficult to reconcile the religious teaching about God's infinite love with any other kind of cosmos." The entire article can be found here: "Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?" JOHN F. HAUGHT, Ph.D., Georgetown University BB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:38 PM Thought I should just say that having started this thing, I've had the grace to read every word. And thanks to Mousethief and many others, there's plenty to think about. Best post award: it has to be Lonesome. Just a pity he's not quite on my side of the argument. (I might have to shift my ground.) Someone quoted Stephen Hawking - fairly as I recall - as saying the science he had unearthed had confirmed him in his faith. But I don't think he would have wanted all that science dumped in favour of the all-at-once creation story. I'm just relieved that there seems to be no danger of the rest of the US following Kansas, and that even Kansas seems to be rethinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:13 PM Thanks, Fionn, for the kind words! I've been on both sides of this fence, and now am sitting firmly on top, which makes it easier to see both the good and bad points of those on either side. Nevertheless I do think the schools should teach science and not religion.
finding the balance (guess it's the Libra in me), |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution Part II From: Scotsbard Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:34 PM mousethief, Maybe I should phrase my question(s) differently ... Are human beings the only creatures in this universe or perhaps on this planet that have souls? Is having souls the qualitative difference you mentioned earlier? Does having souls grant us unique perception, or rights, or responsibilities? I suspect the humans have a higher capacity for communicating and manipulating memes than the other earthlings, but am aware of no reasonable proof that a qualitative difference exists. Frankly, I don't have a problem with having humans having evolved from "lower" species, and would postulate that anyone whose thinking can't accomodate that fact has some fundamental insecurities. ... apologies for the strong language, but that red herring comment seemed insulting ... ~S~ |