Topic awaiting preservation: owwwwwww.....it hurts bad (Page 2 of 3)

Witches, I only recently learned about Wicca and I was suprised to see that someone I knew was a witch. It was very interesting what she said and the research I have done on the topic.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

Then there is Candlemas aka Christmas aka Imbolc or maybe it's just the Yule holiday.

---

First off I would like to know what you think Candlemas has to do with Christmas, and also what Halloween has do with "pagan" holidays. The sites aren't really specific as to the origins of the now practiced Halloween. I would like to know if you have anything to add.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created.

---

Not in the literal sense of Earth, no, but in the sense of how the Earth is populated by so many diverse species, Yes.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I take it, it is easier for you to believe in Magic and Myth, then it is for you
to believe in a natural process

---

Actually it is quite easy to believe in some magic and myth with what I hear from friends/missionaries. Also, the Bible and what it has to say is not myth. As for natural process, I understand most of it and am continuing my education to understand more. It is a never ending process.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

something having been researched does not make it science

---

No, absolutely correct. Something being researched does not make that something science. The way it is being researched is science.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As Ruski pointed out, if we are to take a religious/mythological story of the
creation of the world, and introduce in a science class...

---

Well, I just don't think it is fair to tell children that the Evolutionary model given by some scientists is the end all proof. I just see a need for children to be given an option to draw thier own conclusions. I am all for free thinking, but children can't think freely if one theory is the only one they know.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Also, the Bible and what it has to say is not myth.

---

Would care to corroborate that?

You will find a very large number of "bilbical" stories present in assyirian mythology, which predates what we know as the old testament. There is no qualm by anyone I know in continuing to refer to these assyrian texts as 'mytholigy', yet when we refer to the same story in the bible as mythology, a great number of people have a problem with it....

Interesting.

As for Halloween, there are mnay examples of such pagan celebrations which are very clearly the origins of the modern holiday.

The same is true of alll major christian holidays.

Christmas has paralells in many pagan cultures, as the celebration of the winter solstice which went by a variety of names in different places and times. Going back to the romans, it was known as 'saturnanian', many germanic tribes used the term yule. One aspect of such celebrations was the veneration of evergreen trees, which were seen as symbolic of everlasting life, sometimes seens as actual deities even. Thus the modern 'christmas tree'. Making it 'christmas' was simply another ploy by the catholics to try to further the christian way by assimilating aspects of pagan practices.

"eastre" was a germanic diety of spring, who - not surprisingly for anyone paying attention - came to earth in the form of a rabbit.

And the list goes on....

"wicca" of course, is (IMO) a farce created in the 19th century by an overly romantic yet under astudious enthusiast in celtic culture.

quote:

---

Well, I just don't think it is fair to tell children that the Evolutionary model given by some scientists is the end all proof.

---

Wow...

Ok. So, it isn't fair, to teach just Physics, either, as "the end all proof" (whatever that means)? Instead, as an alternative, we should teach that the world is flat as well?

I am really not understanding something here, Gideon, and I think you are really not understanding something here, either. Evolution is not up for grabs, as a theory. I have already said that now, a couple of times. You trying to say it is something other than what it is, will not change that anymore than you saying that Physics is also wrong, and the world is flat will change the fact that the world is round. And the current theoretical models of how this Evolutionary process works are by all means not set in stone. Where ever did you get that idea?

Second, Evolution and Religious faith can exist in harmony side-by-side...just ask Bugs. One could still believe in a Creator, and see Evolution as part of its design.

I fear there is not going to be any reasoning with you, when you fail to identify and seperate Fact from Myth. And as DL pointed out above, your "solutions" to the "problems" that you evidently see, are unfortunately only bent in one direction : to that of your Faith! And then you attempt again, to "belittle" the facts

quote:

---

I am all for free thinking, but children can't think freely if one theory is the only one they know.

---

Again, Evolution is not a theory! And giving them a choice, between Fact, and some Myth out of a religious book is somehow promoting free thinking?

Who chooses which religious book? And which Myth? You mention Creationism...I assume you were talking about the Creationism from your Religious Faith (that in the Bible), right? Why should anyone use that? The Aborigines of Australia have a much longer history of their Myths and Legends, why not use them? It is also based on Creationism, albeit a bit different than that which is in the Bible!

So which version of Creationism is right? Yours? The Hindus? The Buhddists? The Aborigines? My peoples version? The Incans? The Mayans? The Egyptians of old? (Sorry for leaving others out...the list is just too long!) Wow...that is a huge can of worms there!

I'm sorry, but maybe we should just stick to the facts in school, and let the children get their "free thinking" at home.

I will respond to your second post in a minute. As for your first post:
I had a sneaky suspicion that many of the observed days in the Christian faith were somehow related to "pagan" religions. I did remember hearing somewhere about how the Church before the middle ages tried to envelope all the other religions and change people's minds toward Christianity. I do understand that it is very bad to compromise beliefs, but I see their position. These new members were so stuck in their tracks that maybe they could only be swayed with the compromise of religious holidays.

I do recognize most of the blunders of those holidays, but I now understand why we decorate a Christmas tree. Thanks.

As for your second post, wow:
I think I understand what the problem is now. Okay, the changing of the physical structure in organisms to pass on new and better traits to their offspring is evolution, correct? Okay. If you take that just a few hundred years you already see differences in traits. Now, some scientists came up with the Theory of Evolution that explains from Darwin's Theory how all life forms are descended from one organism. Am I correct in this? Okay, I agree that organisms change over time. What I don't agree with is the theory that they changed into totally different organisms over millions of years. Is this a satisfactory explaination for you or do I need to go further. I think you saw my disagreement as against all evolution, when I meant it against the Theory of Evolution which spans millions of years.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Evolution and Religious faith can exist in harmony side-by-side

---

Yes, I believe I have already stated this. I believe in macro-evolution, not micro. I believe that God put many kinds of animals on this Earth. Then the flood happened and two of each (with a few exceptions) were saved. Then those kinds evolved into different groups to better fit their environment. I do not believe that those kinds changed into different kinds. Do you understand?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Again, Evolution is not a theory

---

Okay, I guess this is one thing that we are going to just have to agree to disagree upon. I believe what was stated above about kinds, and that the different forms of life seen did not come around from millions of years of evolution. That is my belief. You can attack it as much as you like, it won't change.

I would like to say one thing: My beliefs aren't easily changed. They take many hours of research and proven facts to change them. As I said before, I used to believe that the Theory of Evolution (micro not macro) was 100% true. Then, my beliefs changed.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I'm sorry, but maybe we should just stick to the facts in school, and let the
children get their "free thinking" at home.

---

First, children spend the majority of their waking hours in school, so that place should not be taken very lightly. It has a very big impact on young people's lives.
Second, if worse comes to worse and those different theories aren't able to be taught in school (the theories backed by facts that is) then none of them should. If you think that children should just be taught facts, and not given any conclusions to descern from those facts then that is more desireable than giving them just one. You see, the Theory of Evolution is a conclusion theory about how things are what they are. It is not a fact, merely a speculation from observing things in this time.

Very easy to grasp both sides of the argument from my point of veiw. I do understand them both. I only agree with one, but understand both. Do you follow?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

^why is he such a doofus?

OK... personally not going to enter inot this debate, but I would like to state one thing about fact, theory and science. Science is entirely based on theory. Scientists hypothesise, test their hypotheses, gather evidence, and then call it fact. But the very basis of science has always been the acceptance that everything you know as fact today may change tomorrow. Currently, yes, evolution is regarded as a fact, not a theory. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it and, even if you listen to vomithorder's creation science site, very little evidence to disprove it. However, it is only regarded as a fact becuase that's what the science community at large calls it. Technically speaking it is still a theory, becuase no one has yet witnessed it actually happening (that I know of, please feel free to point me to something showing me I'm totally wrong. Believe me, I would be very interested to read it. This is a facinating subject). But it will be regarded as a fact until something comes along to summarily disprove it.

Well, Gideon, coming from the prospective of a Once-believing Christian, I can only shake my head at your...well, maybe you will re-examine the facts without your rosy glasses of Faith, and come to a different conclusion.

The Flood theory doesn't work. Period. Unless you throw a Miracle in there.

The Aborigines of Australia are the downfall of the Flood theory. Over 65,000+ years of unbroken history and heritage there. Or are you suggesting, that the flood occurred before that? Fact is, the Aborigines do have Flood legends...Most aboriginal peoples do. Many scientists tend to agree, it probably had something to do with the change from the last ice age to a more temperate climate. Recent observations and findings in oceanic archeology is starting to dig up some rather interesting things along these lines.

In the timeline of the Bible, there is not enough time for species...oh fuck it. These points have been done before, ad infinium, until, as Gideon has said, it comes down to a question of Faith (which is not scietific at all). If that is what you wish to believe, then believe so.

Why should I care?

Skaarjj, science has measured Evolution, and has seen it working, and duplicated results and findings on a rather short time scale. It is much more difficult, to do a long timescale bit of research, because we are just at the infancy of such. However...

We have been through all this before, here at the Asylum as well. I'm sick and tired of having to explain it again, and again, and again...

Someone else do it. I'm sick and tired of having to.

Precisely my peace-pipe smoking friend. We've measured it over a short time-scale, but evolution as it is claimed in a century spanning, a millenium and aeon spanning thing. Micro changes on a small time-scale are difficult to prove from congenital gene-addition problems. Evolution is entire species gradually changing to fit their environment. One people, tow people, a dozen, a hundred, a thousand; in a species population of billions of people these aren't significant statistical numbers. However, yes, we've been over this ground before, and by and large we agree with each other. No need to dredge it all up again. On with the innane chatter everyone. Nothing to see here.

One should never give up on the search and love of truth, guys But I know exactly what you mean about getting tired. Everyone gets tired now and again. But think of it this way, if you don't speak up for what you think is right, who will? The other guy. That's not always such a great alternative.

This comment is directed at all the friends here and not one side or the other. It is meant as a general encouragement coming from a bug who has recently gotten over a "tired spell" himself


I have to agree that in general terminology it is ok to call evolution a fact. When we get into the details of it all then there are aspects of the theory that are better supported than others. But from my perspective, the Genesis story cannot be held up as an alternative theory to our current understanding of the history of the earth. It is my position that Genesis makes one very profound statement which is "In the beginning God..." All the details after that flesh out that concept but were not meant to provide a scientific explanation of the physical events; how could it? Science as we know it wasn't practiced for centuries (millenia actually) after Genesis was so brilliantly jotted down.

So, while I think the current theory of evolution does have holes, it is the current working version of what we know. We stick with it until a better scientific theory comes along to challenge it. So far, there really hasn't been one. I suspect there will be a major shift in thought one of these decades that will revolutionize our understanding of the physical universe but the timing of that is anyone's guess.

Gideon, let me ask you a few questions about this topic. Do you think that the Genesis stories of creation are literally true, or only partially? Do you believe that the days mentioned there are 24 hour days or descriptions of some other period of time? Do you think the author of Genesis was given information by God about the "actual" way the world was created? If he was given this information, what was the purpose of the text for the people of the time it was written? These are just a few questions I have for you.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-23-2004 15:08)

Well, let me just make this one point - Evolution works on a generation principle. I hope that is obvious.

By studying microbiological organisms, which have a very short lifespan, we can view evolution "faster", so to speak, because of the faster propagation of the generations. It is here, that evolution has been found, documented, and can be reliably duplicated. Be aware that adaptions to the environment have been observed, mutations, lots of things. Though mircro-organisms are not as complex as other types of organisms (like mammals, etc), one thing is true - more complex species are made up of micro-organisms. Anyone seriously suggesting, that this Evolution is not fact, really has blinded themselves to reality.

And even in mammals, there have been demonstrated evolution. This has been mentioned before in the Asylum. I don't know if this information made it into the new Asylum.

I want to take some time, to thank Bugs, for his well-thought out and resonable post.

Skaarjj, we both have been around long enough, to know about all the times these, and other, topics have been discussed, and we have both participated. When I say generations, most who have a working knowledge of Evolution know what is meant. That is one of the reasons that research in microbiology is so fascinating, because one can actually track the process of evolution over a relatively short period of time.

Yea we have a select group of hundreds of concerned mothers that are pissed off in my little town because the City Council has voted for trick or treating to take place on sunday. I'm suprised that I'm speechless, you know? Because normally I'd have a lot to point out but, there's a rather large quantity if contradictions and blatant ignorance in this case. Thankfully for me, I'm going to a rave 40 minutes from here on Halloween.

WOW!

commercialism at it's best; crossing all barriers.

*sigh*
Did you read my post or just skim it? I agreed with you WS (on most parts that is).

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I think I understand what the problem is now. Okay, the changing of the physical
structure in organisms to pass on new and better traits to their offspring is
evolution, correct? Okay. If you take that just a few hundred years you
already
see differences in traits. Now, some scientists came up with the Theory of
Evolution that explains from Darwin's Theory how all life forms are
descended
from one organism. Am I correct in this? Okay, I agree that organisms
change
over time. What I don't agree with is the theory that they changed into
totally
different organisms over millions of years. Is this a satisfactory explaination
for you or do I need to go further. I think you saw my disagreement as
against
all evolution, when I meant it against the Theory of Evolution which spans
millions of years.

---

Okay, try and read this and comprehend what I am saying. Yes, evolution, organisms changing into something different over a course of generations, is correct. I have no problem with that. It is proven fact.

Now, the problem I have is trying to determine the ancient past with this information. "Evolutionist" scientists determine the creation of the world and the formation of all these species of creatures one way, "Creationists" another. That is all I am saying.

As for the flood theory WS, why can't it work? There is overwhelming evidence that it does. Including all the "Aboriginal flood legends," and others form different cultures.

Thank you Skarrjj, that was the point I was trying to make.

Listen, the facts aren't the issue, it is the interpretation of the facts that is.

And WS, I'm sorry if I am bringing up old arguments. I'm sorry if it is boring to you. You have to remember that comparatively speaking I am a newbie, and I don't know what happened before I got here.

Okay Bugs, I'll answer your questions, but I would like to hear your response to one of mine.

As for the Genesis "stories," absolutely 100% true.

As for the days, well, I have a long speil that generally consists of many things. I think I posted it on a different thread a while ago. The basics of it is that those six days are the only days in the whole Bible that are disagreed with. If those aren't 24 hour normal days, then why didn't Jesus raise from the dead in three-thousand years? Anyway, day in Hebrew can be a normal day, a year, or an age. The way to figure out if it is an ordinary day is if it has evening, morning, number, or night attached to it. Guess what, in Genesis those six days have evening, morning, number, and night attached to them.

As for the author (Moses) being given a revelation of how the world was created by the One Supreme God then yes.

As for the purpose, there are many. I could be here all night listing them. Just to name a few:
-To show God's supreme power that He could create everything by His own hand.
-Also to show where creatures and man came from.
-To show why Jesus had to die on the Cross for our sins.
-(I think God had some foresight too) To prove that He was God by creating Earth and plants and light before the sun.

Okay, here is my question Bugs:
If you don't believe in the literal Genesis, and you tell someone about Christ, why do you expect them to believe it? The basis for why Christ died was in Genesis. The way the world was created in six days was in Genesis. If you tell them to pay heed to one part of the Bible and not another, what makes you think that they will pay attention to any of it at all?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon,

quote:

---

-To show God's supreme power that He could create everything by His own hand.
-Also to show where creatures and man came from.
-To show why Jesus had to die on the Cross for our sins.

---

Each of these points are intact given both of our approaches to Genesis. God created it all. Laying the ground work for redemption is a biggie and I'm glad you mentioned that one.

quote:

---

-(I think God had some foresight too) To prove that He was God by creating Earth and plants and light before the sun.

---

On the days before the sun and moon were created, what governed the day and night?

Look, Moses and his people had a very different view of the physical universe than you or me. Much of it is consistent with other cultures of that time. That is why Genesis mentions the great seas and the firmament and such. The concept of narrating with the sense of chronology was an important part of that culture. That is why they had no problem describing the creation of the sun and moon after 3 days had already passed because the point was that God created all the things they mentioned and the order was unimportant.

It's very important to readers today and that is why so many people pick up Genesis and giggle because they read it completely out of cultural and historical context. They read it expecting it to make sense to their world view which for most of us comes from centuries of Western thought and orientation. Honestly, I think we do a disservice to new readers of the bible by telling them to read it without a primer of its context.

Ok, now to your question.

quote:

---

If you don't believe in the literal Genesis, and you tell someone about Christ, why do you expect them to believe it? The basis for why Christ died was in Genesis. The way the world was created in six days was in Genesis. If you tell them to pay heed to one part of the Bible and not another, what makes you think that they will pay attention to any of it at all?

---

First let me say that I think the bible is God's word to us. I don't want you to think that because I don't read it literally that I somehow regard it as anything less than that.

In order to follow what the bible has for us, I believe we must know what it says. That sounds pretty obvious. Well, let me take an absurd example but an important one. When Christ says that unless his followers drink his blood and gnaw on his flesh they cannot see the kingdom of God in John 6, what did he mean? After reading further, one begins to realize that Christ was speaking about the Eucharist but he said drink his blood and gnaw on his flesh. Do you, Gideon, think he meant that literally? Do you think Peter stepped up to the plate (pun intended) on that one?

Why did I point that out? Because I think you would say it is clear that Christ was speaking symbolically about the Lord's Supper and how his followers would share in him after he left this world for Heaven. But why should I be expected to read Genesis with such a strict literality and not be able to look deeper into who wrote it and when and what they meant at the time? It seems the only acceptable way to read the bible to me. If putting my best foot forward in trying to understand the bible and its contents by applying critical thinking makes me less of a believer, then so be it. God demands the best of my heart *and* my mind.

So, the short answer to your question is that I expect people to believe in Christ based on the entirety of what I find in the bible with their eyes wide open and ready for the tough questions. I'll tell you something I do take quite literally, and that is the promise that Christ made when he said that he who seeks will find. I think God honors honest and truthful seekers.

I need to end this answer with a quote I ran across recently:

quote:

---

To be persuasive we must be believable
to be believable, we must be credible
to be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

---

I have no choice, Gideon. I have to be honest with myself and those I hope will come to a saving knowledge of Christ. I just don't think a strictly literal reading of Geneis is warranted from the facts as I know them. So how's that for a long response? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-24-2004 06:05)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

As for the flood theory WS, why can't it work? There is overwhelming evidence that it does. Including all the "Aboriginal flood legends," and others form different cultures.

---

No amount of belief makes something a fact, buddy.

---

Gideon you seriosuly demonstrate huge ignorance on human history and it's cultural developments, how each societie's languages developed, their art, their beliefs and literature (that includes Jewish), by whom and what they were inspired, how they affected the people and history etc, etc, etc.

You seriosuly need a course on art history, humanities and anthropology.

Ruski, we can all use more understanding of all of that

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Gideon, I read your posts. All of them. I do not skim or ignore something, that I wish to discuss.

The reasons that the Aborigines put the Flood in the Bible to rest, according to a literal belief in the Bible? That is easy, because of the Timeline given in the Bible. The Aborigines existed before Adam and Eve were created, first of all. Second, the Aborigines documented the animals of Australia in cave and rock paintings. These also preceed the Flood in the bible. Later rock paintings show that some animals didn't exist anymore, and that some did.

Aboriginal Timeline -> 60,000+ years (verified). Unverified (250,000+ years).
Literal view of the Bible Timeline -> ca. 20,000 years, give or take a few.

The Bible says two of every creature. That first.

Second, two of every creature does not provide a big enough gene pool for survival, first of all. Second, what did the predators eat? The moment that they ate something, that species that was eaten from was doomed to extinction. There is no way around this one, without a "miracle"!

As I said, and will keep saying, a literal view of the Bible gets shot to pieces. There is more, much, much more, but I have already said enough on this subject.

A similar conversation regarding the literal interpretation of the bible was had here -
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/21769?offset=280

starting about half way down the page.

The other 8 pages of discussion are interesting as well

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

First let me say that I think the bible is God's word to us. I don't want you to
think that because I don't read it literally that I somehow regard it as
anything less than that.

---

No, no, I understand. I used to not take Genesis literal myself. But then I found out that if you try and reinterpret one part of the Bible, then that opens the floor for other reinterpretations. If you say that those six days aren't really six days, then maybe men can't only marry women. Maybe that was a misprint like the "days." Also how Jesus rose from the dead. Maybe that is up for interpretaion. If you don't stand on your faith, your whole faith, somone can knock you down easily.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

On the days before the sun and moon were created, what governed the day and
night?

---

Well, it said that He created light and darkness on the first day. Where did that light come from? Well, if He is bright and shining, why not from Him?

I do try and look at it in context of from when Moses wrote it. In that day the culture was very different. But, I still stand on the point that if you can reinterpret what was said in that book, why not the rest?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I read your posts. All of them.

---

Okay, I'm sorry.

Could you give me a way that they confirmed the aboriginal timeline? I would like to know if you can find the source. If you can't it is okay, I am just interested.

About the two of every kind, there is a way around it. I guess you didn't know that Adam and Eve were vegitarians did you? They ate plants because before sin there was no death, disease, or pain (which also means no dead dinosaur bones). Well, in order to keep up with that no death thing, all the animals were hebivores too. That changed after the flood, but shortly before the tower of Babel.

If you have any more "shots" (questions) that science can shoot at the Bible, I would be glad to hear them. Not only for your benefit but mine as well.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

And Ruski, I really don't appreciate that remark.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Well, in order to keep up with that no death thing, all the animals were hebivores too.

---

Hehe. I'm holding my sides right now, because they hurt. Hehe.

Ok, I'm going to let that one go, just in the interests of...hell, I don't know. Aside from the fact that you are not going to see herbivores rapidly undergo that type of Evolution in under what? 10,000 years? Wooohooo, now THAT is speedy Evolution!

You still haven't answered the problem with the gene pool, and more importantly, accidental deaths, disease, and other unfortunate (but deadly) effects of Nature and the natural world. Gonna lose some due to that, and starting with two animals is not going to give one anywhere near a healthy shot at the gene pool thing. Let us talk about diet, as well, while we are at it. You are aware, that some animal species need special diets to survive?

How do you explain the presence of animals in Australia, a place totally cut off from the rest of the world? What, did the kangaroos swim the whole way? Or did Noah decide to take a world cruise?

But I'm willing to humor you. So, when did the carnivores evolve from the hebivores? You say before the Tower of Babel? Timeline, please. On what are you basing your assumptions? Evidence, please.

If you wish to know about the Aborigine timeline, google it. I have dug it up many, many times and posted lots of it here, at the Asylum. Read that which DL posted. There is some good information in there, as well. How do you suggest that the Aborigines got to Australia, anyway? How about the Native American Indians to the Americas? How do you explain the Ice Core samples from both Greenland and Antartica? More important, how do you explain Wooly Mammoths (the ones frozen in Siberia)? They died before your Flood, if one goes from a literal timeline of the Bible. Preserved in Perma Frost. But if there was a Flood that covered the entire world...wouldn't the perma frost thaw out? Yes, it would. And the wooly mammoths wouldn't then have been preserved.

quote:

---

They ate plants because before sin there was no death, disease, or pain (which also means no dead dinosaur bones)

---

Actually, recent research does tend to support that plants feel pain, or a type of pain. And the process of eating plants is causing death - death to plants, and plant cells. To suggest otherwise is rubbish. Adam and Eve would have to had lived without eating anything, to avoid causing death that way. Not to mention all the things that they stepped on. Ummm...what about accidents? You know, lots of things die from accidents all the time. You say that Adam and Eve were vegatarians. Where does it say that in the Bible?

You sure you really have thought all this out? A literal belief of the Bible is going to be very...difficult to hold, in light of the facts, I'm afraid. I mean, as we go on, it is going to get more and more difficult for you. At some point, you will have to put your hands over your ears and eyes, and shut out the world of reality.

Are you certain you don't wish to rethink your position? A subjective view of the Bible might be easier for you.

Here is what Bugs had to say, about literal interpretations of the Bible

quote:

---

This really depresses me I think this is the type of bending over backwards type of logic that results from insisting a literal read of the creation account in Genesis. If you are constrained to that reading, then there is really no other way to deal with so much of the data we have about earth's history but to just lose all credibility with anyone that values clear thinking.

---

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-27-2004 01:03)

I'm coming in to point at two small, seemingly meaningless, misconceptions. Unfortunately, they are misconceptions many people have, so I'm taking this moment to clear things up. They are related, so I'll address them together.

Gidean wrote way up top^

quote:

---

I think I understand what the problem is now. Okay, the changing of the physical structure in organisms to pass on new and better traits to their offspring is evolution, correct? Okay. If you take that just a few hundred years you already see differences in traits. Now, some scientists came up with the Theory of Evolution that explains from Darwin's Theory how all life forms are descended from one organism. Am I correct in this?

---

[my emphasis]

False.

Firstly, from RNA to DNA, amino acids, proteins, all the way to humans, horses, and whales, reproduce. That reproduction process may be sexual, asexual, or even, in the case of DNA and proteins, non-sexual.

That reproduction is largely not done in labs...it is not perfect. That is, the system has noise, not all of the data is transfered exactly. With each reproduction comes seemingly random changes in data. This seemingly random mutation is evolution.
From this mutation comes one of two possible results:
1) the new entity is able to reproduce and pass along the mutation
2) the new entity is not able to reproduce and the mutation is not passed along

There is no sense of better genes or worse genes or anything like that. It's simply change. That's all. The theories of evolution do not include some sort of ultimate goal of betterment or anything like that. It is simple: reproduce or not. That's all.

So, #1, that organisms pass along "better traits to their offspring" is incorrect. Things reproduce or they don't reproduce. That's all.


Now for #2, that "all life forms are descended from one organism."

As most scientists think it today, life arose not from one creature, but from the creation of strings of ribose (a simple sugar) and phosphate molecules. These strings were created (we think!) from the interaction of molecules in clay and heat and electricity. This interaction likely happened in many different places, creating uncountable numbers of strings of molecules, and is probably still happening today.

Today we call these strings of molecules RNA. Back then they did not have names. =)

RNA has two characteristics that are important to this discussion. One is it acts as a catalyst for certain other chemical reations (like proteins, but less efficient). The other is it has the ability to store data -- that is, the RNA is made of strings of sugar and phosphates. The composition and order of the molecules in that string are data. (like DNA, but slightly less efficient and much less stable)

So, #1, that all life evolved from a single creature, is false.
Life likely evolved from the interaction of proteins, which came about as the interactions of amino acids, which is made of pieces of RNA, that are created by reproducing DNA, which was created by mutations of RNA, which was made originally by clay and electricity and heat.

These may seem like small differences, but they are important to understanding what we're talking about when we talk about evolution. It's not like one day there was a slug and then the slug had baby rabbits and then the rabbits had baby dogs that grew up to have baby chimps and people. (stupid, simplistic example)

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of different kinds of proteins twisting and combining and interacting, with each other and with other chemicals (oxygen, nitrogen, etc), over billions of years, to create even the simplest of life forms -- single celled asexual organisms. From the many millions of diffent kinds of asexual organisms and proteins evolved slightly more complex organisms, which interacted with the original group to create even more complex organisms...etc, forever.

Thank you for clearing that up Mobrul. I remember something like that from Bio class. Good times. But yes, that is one of the major theories. I saw that one particularly on a discovery channel episode. It was quite interesting. But I guess I got a little ahead of myself. Yes, I am including all of that on my Theory of Evolution, I am just taking it from half way.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

sorry, but half way?

Gideon - I honestly can't help but read your last post more like this:

"Yes, I am including all of that on my Theory of Evolution, but I am ignoring the details because i don't understand them, and it's easier to condemn it that way"

~shrug~

FWIW

*Duplicate post*

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-27-2004 01:02)

Sorry about that. I guess I posted a little too quickly without thinking it through.
I meant that I remembered seeing a documentary on an experiment like that. I thought it was interesting. I do recognize that as one of the theories. The main reason I didn't include that theory is because I wanted to start with a period in the Theory of Evolution that more portrayed Darwin's theory, but if you all want to talk about that it is fine with me.

WS- You asked almost all the questions I have been waiting for. The only thing is that they were all at the same time. Well, you covered pretty much all of it except "who was Cain's wife?"

Just as a little note before I start that might drive you up the wall, I will quote scripture and claim that God had His hand in it. So just to let you know up front...

Let me start at the beginning:

As for the carnivores eating plants, they did. The reason I can make a statement like that is because being humans, our diet is not the same around the world. It seems like everyone has something different they can eat. Why couldn't animals eat the same way? Animals have a choice in food, and for the majority, they have specially designed attributes to help them, but those attributes could have changed. Plus, as for carnivores eating plants with sharp teeth, pandas would be classified as carnivores if it was by thier teeth. They have sharp teeth to eat through the bamboo, why aren't they meat eaters if they have the teeth for it?

As for disease, dying, etc. they came after sin. Nothing died before Adam sinned. The world was in perfect harmony so that God was even walking in it!

Healthy shot at the gene pool thing? Do you mean like getting good genes vs. bad ones? Well, if so that isn't really true back then. You see, men were born perfect, and without copying mistakes (animals too), and there weren't any diseases from genes and the like. Well, as time went on those copying mistakes got worse and then it was bad to marry relations. Before Moses' time it was okay.

As for the animals in different parts of the world it is easy. After the flood the Ice Age happened. Then, many new roots were opened up for people to travel to the Americas, Afreica, Australia, etc. The routes now are swallowed up in the sea.

As for carnivores "evolving," if you want to call it that, into carnivores, then if was either after God gave the animals to man for food, or after the Fall, I will have to do more looking up to figure exact timeline out.

I think you are getting the timeline a little mixed up. The Ice Age happened after the Flood.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Ummm...what about accidents?

---

Well, as for that in the Bible, the animals and people were held up by God. It said that death entered the world after Adam's sin. That means that accidents weren't fatal.

More on this to come...

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

ohh so fucking naive.... sad sad sad.....

So my latest National Geographic came yesterday. I open it up to find, in very large red letters:

"Was Darwin Wrong?"

Of course, upon opening to the appropriate page, I am presented with an even larger "NO", followed by an *excellent* article on the subject.

I highly suggest that anyone interested in the topic, regardless what side you tkae, get yourself a copy and read it.

Frighteningly, a recent gallup poll has shown that 45% of american adults do not 'beleive' that evolution is real.

Gideon,
When you say, "I do recognize that as one of the theories.", you omit something important. It is not only "one of the theories", but the *predominant theory* of the origin life...not one that can easily be ignored in a discussion on the topic.
EvoWiki if you are interested.

And, the only reason I mentioned it at all is because it clears up the popular thought, the misconception, of evolution - one you echoed in these Asylum halls - that life evolved from a single creature.

And, a few times, you've mentioned something or another about "Darwin's theory". I'm not trying to be a jerk here. This is a serious question. Have you ever read Origin of Species?
If not, follow that link. It goes to the BBC website where you can download the entire book, for free. Have a read. You might be surprised what he had to say (and *not* say).



Thanks DL. I don't often read National Geographic, but I will this month.

And, concerning the 45% of americans who do or don't "believe" in this or that theory, I have but one thing to say.
Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.

One of the (many) big issues that the article tackles is the fact (as WS mentioned earlier I believe) that evolution can be witnessed in the labratory, and has been with many microorganisms, as well as with a study done involving something like 20,000 generations of a strain of fruit fly.

I was interested to learn that after a few months of being infected with HIV, a person ends up carrying a completely unique strain of the virus. Why? Evolution of course.
In much the same way that members of a species isolated on an island chain will develop different characteristics (and even eventually hit a point where they are indeed a seperate species), so too will a virus that is isolated in a particular person's body.

As Mobrul said - read the Origin of the Species. Most people would be very surprised to see what it does and does not say. Many people would be very surprised at the sheer magnitude of research Darwin did, and the amount coroboration between various aspects of scientific study found before he ever made public his discovery.

And read the article!

quote:

---

Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.

---

Now you tell me. I've wasted a whole lot of time and energy on trying to float away....





(Edited by DL-44 on 10-27-2004 18:09)

quote:

---

quote:Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.



Now you tell me. I've wasted a whole lot of time and energy on trying to float away....

---

Me too.

Thanks for the links Mobrul. I will definitly look into it. I guess I don't know much about Darwin's theories according to what you are alluding to. I will read more on that later.

You are right Mobrul, I was wrong about it being just "one of the theories." You are correct in saying that it is the leading and most widely accepted one. So are you saying that the evolutionary theory came into play after the amino acids started to form RNA and DNA? That seems interesting. Could you elaborate on that?

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.

---

He he... Can't see gravity, can't see the wind, doesn't mean they aren't there. I like that.

Well, a species changing to have bigger legs, longer lifespan, etc. is very different from a kind of species changing into another kind. Fish into cows, dinosaurs into birds, and apes into humans are the most tossed around topics. I used to understand and accept them, but then I was confronted with some compelling evidence from AIG, and I decided that they may not be wholly correct.

Please do not respond to my 10-27 post just yet. I don't have any evidence behind the answers posted yet, and that is the next post I will make when I have time.

And Ruski, I hate to do this by I would like to tell you an age old quote from that timeless classic Bambi:

quote:

---

Thumper said:
If you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all.

---

I will only accept the name calling if you back it up with evidence. Thank you.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Fish into cows, dinosaurs into birds, and apes into humans are the most tossed around topics.

---

Those are absurd examples.

Please note: Darwin never said that apes turned into humans. Neither did any respectable scientist.

Please: read Darwin's "Origin of the Species". it will save us all a good deal of frustration.

You write "Well, a species changing to have bigger legs, longer lifespan, etc. is very different from a kind of species changing into another kind."

Now we're getting somewhere. Follow me here.
"Species" is a human term. It doesn't have any meaning beyond that to which we ascribe it.
So, at what point do you find the schism? Do you accept that a wolf can, over a dozen or so generations, become domesticated dogs? Do you accept that a domesticated pig will, in a generation or two in the wild, give birth to wild boars? Both of those changes are readily accepted and relatively easily observed.

This is a list of the Genus, Species, and Subspecies of the Canidae Class (dogs, wolves, jackels, coyotes, etc.)
When you look at that list you'll see all sorts of different kinds of wolves at the Class level! We're talking about 3 levels of distinction more general than that of "Species".

So, you say you are willing to accept "longer legs...etc". I am presuming here you would include such things as different ear length and shape, different fur color and thickness, perhaps tail length and "style".

Where, then, do you draw the line?
Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk. This is a tough question, but it's absolutely essential to the discussion of evolution. We can see so-called micro-evolution happening. It is as undeniable as gravity.
If we deny "macro-evolution" we must draw a line of definition between micro and macro-evolution.
So far, I see any such line as being arbitrary at best.





Now, regarding the RNA, DNA, amino acid, protein, evolution question.

1) There exists RNA based life forms. They are small, simple things. They generally don't have skin. or legs. or a brain. Really simple stuff.

2) There exists DNA based life forms. That's you and me and Fido.

3) There exists protein based "things" which consume energy, produce waste, and reproduce. I hesitate to call them "life", but they share a lot of the same qualities we typically attribute to "life". BSE (mad cow disease) is one well known example. There is evidence that some diabetes, Alzhemier's disease, some cancers, and other malfunctions are caused by proteins.

4) RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins, though they are essential to life as we know it, also exist independent of life -- they are simply strings of molecules and have all the same chemical properties as any other compound. They are not immune to the interactions we study in chemistry classes. In fact, we exist largely because of those chemical interactions.

5) RNA, because of its ability to both carry data and act as a catalyst, can do work on itself, reproducing itself, interacting with other molecules. A Nobel Prize was won because of this discovery and work continues today.

What I was saying is that "evolution", I'm defining as "mutation at reproduction", happens at the RNA, DNA, and protein level. That is regardless of size of the creature we are talking about - human, dog, snail, bacteria, single-cell organism, or even the proteins responsible for BSE and cystic fibrosis.

Evolution happens at all levels of reproduction, with all sorts of "creatures"
And we see RNA and amino acids "spontaneously" developing in nature today from non-life material.
And we see RNA and amino acids interacting with each other in non-life material.

It is not difficult for me to see evolution as natural as gravity or electrical fields.
It just is.

Mobrul, that was a superb post. A better description I have not read. Simply superb.

quote:

---

Just as a little note before I start that might drive you up the wall, I will quote scripture and claim that God had His hand in it. So just to let you know up front...

---

First of all, you can't use something that you are trying to prove as evidence. Since a literal interpretation of the Bible is at stake here, you can't use the Bible itself as proof!

And this is why I will readily describe myself as a Creative Evolutionist. Maybe it's actually fence sitting in disguise, but I believe that some higher being or intelligence (call it God, Buddah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Fido, whatever) started off the creation process and that it's still going on today through Evolution.

Best of both worlds.

Mobrul, thanks for the link to d/l Origin of Species. I'll have to grab that for reading on the commute.

PS - what happened to the discussion about the original topic?

_____________________

le coeur du feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Yeah, Rhyssa, that is the same kind of thoughts I once held. That God held the match that started the big bang. It changed a little after I was presented with some facts.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Those are absurd examples.

---

Hey, but they are widely used. I guess I was just useing some that came to mind.

Mobrul, you are not being a jerk. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and your questions are very good conversation starters. Thanks for the post. It was very well thought out and researched.

Yes, there is a line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It is a little fuzzy, but there none-the-less. The line that has been presented to me is the changing of animal "kinds". An organism into a completely different class than it was in. Like tigers for example. There were 7 different tigers in the Asian/Australian region. Those tigers were all from one tiger originally. That is the evolution that is recorded as fact by everyone. You can see it by meerly looking at the similarities. Now, the part I don't entirly know, is about where it starts before that. If all cats came from one cat and became the seperate cats they are now, or if there were a few different kinds at the first. Either way, there was one or a few cats that they came from. That is fact using Darwin's theory (correct me on that if I am wrong).

Then the tricky part is where they came from before that. That is where Creation and Evolution stem off. Both sides recognize all the before informantion as fact, but then the origins of the "first" kinds are disputed.

Creation says they were made by God and then they were on the boat.

Evolution (correct me if I'm wrong, please) states that the different kinds stemmed from a common ancestor or ancestors, then evolved into all the "first" kinds.

WS, I told you it would drive you up the wall...

I won't use scripture to prove scripture, just where in scripture things happen and then use facts to back them up.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

It changed a little after I was presented with some facts.

---

Except you haven't demonstrated any facts here yet. Lots of supposition, theory, and hypothesis and LOTS of verse. But facts? I don't see any facts so far. Are you sure you know what a fact is? Maybe we need to define it here.

And no,

quote:

---

WS, I told you it would drive you up the wall

---

it doesn't drive me up the wall. It is too absurd to drive me up the wall.

Okay, I'm going to try and finish up my 10-27 post.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

plants feel pain, or a type of pain

---

Well, they may have the different reactions to stimuli that we do, but that doesn't mean they have a soul. Plants react to sunlight and such, but they don't have any thoughts about it (or any chance to have thoughts about it). The ones who have souls are suggested to be Humans and Animals. Mainly from linking many different passages in the Bible. I could do that for you but it wouldn't be for a couple of weeks.

As for Adam and Eve being vegitarians, they were. They Bible suggests in various places about their lifestyle and how God actually made the first sacrifice. He slayed the first animal for Adam and Eve's clothing.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Are you certain you don't wish to rethink your position? A subjective view
of
the Bible might be easier for you.

---

Yes, it would be easier, but the easiest road isn't always the best road.

Okay, I have finished the conclusions for my post, so please respond to as much of it as you like.

I was going to put in scriptures and facts that prove it, but all I would really be doing is moving facts from AIG to here, so I will just give you the web site to look at it yourself. It has all the answers you have been looking for about Creation. http://www.answersingenesis.org. I hope it has the answers you are looking for.

I am not completely endorsing the site because, lets face it, people are fallible. I am meerly saying that this site has some good information to back up these claims I have told you. If you think I am lazy and need to post all the info then I will, but I would rather not have to post all of that.

One little disclaimer, though, is that I may come across as thinking I know all the answers. Actually, that is most likely why most of these theories of mine have been rejected. I want to point out, though, that I do not have all the answers, and from this point on I will try to not pretend I do. I don't know everything, and I don't want to pretend I do. I know a little, and that has gotten by for me, but I understand if it is not enough for very critical thinkers. That is why I have given you this web site. They don't have all the answers, but they have quite a few.

Thank you for dealing with me while I have been so big-headed.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.