[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I never said we have always been the same size/shape/color

sorry read your post wrong!

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
How about 4 1/2 billion years? Anyway I am not suggesting that argument.

I was just wondering what your view was, do you think this aligns with most prodestants you know?

Most Protestant faiths have no problem believing either: God created the initial world in 6 of our understood 24-hour days. He's God, so why couldn't He? At the same time, it could have taken Him 6 20-bazillion hours days as we know them.

Since you narrowed your question a bit, I'll say that the time frame upon which we place Creation was put there by man, not God. Personally, my faith and belief is that Time has no bearing on God and He is not contained within its boundaries. He is beyond Time because He has no need for it. Time is a measurement tool created and used by man, just like length is. Did God create inches? Yards? Meters? Time? No, man did.

Maury

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Time is a measurement tool created and used by man, just like length is. Did God create inches? Yards? Meters? Time? No, man did.

I agree with this part, somewhat, again I didn't want an argument about this, I don't think it came off that way, I just wanted to know what your view was, and do you think this aligns with most prodestants you know? If you care not to answer I understand.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
How about stronger wings because the food is heavier or because the trees are higher to nest in?

That's an adaptation, too.

If the world were to cover in water and the bird developed gills and fins, that would be a catastrophic adaptation, thus, evolution.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ironknee:
so god may be shorter (ie pre adaptions), if god made man in his own image?

What's an image? A representation -- not a duplicate.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
sorry read your post wrong!

NP!

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I agree with this part, somewhat, again I didn't want an argument about this, I don't think it came off that way, I just wanted to know what your view was, and do you think this aligns with most prodestants you know? If you care not to answer I understand.

Yes, most Protestant faiths adhere to my opinions -- the vast majority. Some fundamentalist groups don't, but they also think God wants you to handle poisonous snakes and crap like that.

Maury

[ironknee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
That's an adaptation, too.

If the world were to cover in water and the bird developed gills and fins, that would be a catastrophic adaptation, thus, evolution.

Maury

if fish can develop legs to walk on earth is that adaptation?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
That's an adaptation, too.

Hold up, back to the parakeet, you said it could never become a hawk, but already we have stronger beak and stronger wings, talons? what if it adapted to have stronger talons because the only food it could find was mice or rodents and it had to grab them?
What would stop you from saying a parakeet could become a hawk, what is the line?

If the world were to cover in water and the bird developed gills and fins, that would be a catastrophic adaptation, thus, evolution.

NO evolution book I have ever read has said a bird developed into a fish. Your concept of evolution unfortunately is way off.

Some fish do have lungs however, the the Dipnoi (lungfish) for example (of the class Choanichthyes (nostril-bearing fishes)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebr...co/dipnoi.html

Since they live in areas where the streams are decided flashy and where surface pools dry completely during times of drought would you consider this an adaptation? If so I would say that is a pretty significant adaptation.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What's an image? A representation -- not a duplicate.

Maury

hey hey don't blame me for that thinking, ie god created man in his own image...people who call themselves real christians believe that was that, no adaptation, no evolution, man was created as is.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Hold up, back to the parakeet, you said it could never become a hawk, but already we have stronger beak and stronger wings, talons? what if it adapted to have stronger talons because the only food it could find was mice or rodents and it had to grab them?
What would stop you from saying a parakeet could become a hawk, what is the line?

All you've described is a change in features. You haven't described a different classification of physiology and anatomy, species, etc.

NO evolution book I have ever read has said a bird developed into a fish. Your concept of evolution unfortunately is way off.

Some fish do have lungs however, the the Dipnoi (lungfish) for example (of the class Choanichthyes (nostril-bearing fishes)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebr...co/dipnoi.html

Since they live in areas where the streams are decided flashy and where surface pools dry completely during times of drought would you consider this an adaptation? If so I would say that is a pretty significant adaptation.

I don't think I ever said anything about a bird into a fish, did I?

And yes, fish with lungs is an adaptation for the reasons you give. A mudskipper is another prime example -- they can "walk" to get food for an extended period of time.

Maury

[Simon X]

!!!!!!!!!

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ironknee:
hey hey don't blame me for that thinking, ie god created man in his own image...people who call themselves real christians believe that was that, no adaptation, no evolution, man was created as is.

Heh, where do you get that? I'm a "real Christian" to use your phrase, and I'm also well studied in the Faith. you need to fire your source.

Maury

[Simon X]

!!!!!!!!!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Yes. It's also important to never mix the word evolution and adaptation as they are two wholly different things that can appear to be the same. As an example -- a very basic one -- many people understand Evolution as being one established life form developing into a wholly different life form, ala "slime" to frog, ape to man. Even without my belief in God, I have issues with this as it cannot be reproduced. My parakeet will not evolve into a hawk. My tabby cat will not evolve into a panther.

Adaptation however, is one life form changing to its environment. Fish with eyes adapting to eyeless fish because they don't to see in the deep. Apes losing prehensile tails because they don't need them.

Right, that's where you would fall into what I termed above "denying biological evolution,"

The big difference with Christianity is that we believe God made Man as a wholly separate being from what already existed on the Earth. We evolved form nothing, but we have undoubtedly gone through much adaptation over the millennia.

Maury

See, that's where I respectfully suggest that you are wrong. I'd be willing to bet you that you can't find a specific doctrine from your religious denomination stating that they deny biological evolution. I go to a Presbyterian church, and here's a statement (pdf) from them basically stating that in their opinion, Christianity is fully consistent with biological evolution. Most Christian churches/denominations have issued similar statements.

Just because some official committee has issued a statement doesn't of course mean you're wrong and they're right. But I think it's important to clarify that most Christian denominations don't, as doctrine, deny biological evolution, and as far as I can tell, most have issued specific statements supporting it, including the Catholic church.

I stand by my statement earlier that the denial of biological evolution is, even within Christianity, a fringe belief.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
All you've described is a change in features. You haven't described a different classification of physiology and anatomy, species, etc.

Name me what the differences between a parakeet and a hawk is? Now, among those differences what can't be called an adaption?

I don't think I ever said anything about a bird into a fish, did I?

You said: "If the world were to cover in water and the bird developed gills and fins"

So you accept a fish can develop lungs, but a bird can't develop gills? why is this?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Simon X:
Not sure if this has already been commented on, I only read part of the first page, but your comment is not what the evolutionist say. We evolved from a common ancestor not from apes.

is this so-called theory pre-1960? Thats when I last picked up a biology book j/k

[ironknee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Heh, where do you get that? I'm a "real Christian" to use your phrase, and I'm also well studied in the Faith. you need to fire your source.

Maury

i sware i know christians who look at "other christians" as not real...

but anyways, so u are saying, god created man in his general image including any adaptations man may take, ie hieght, color, size...

[ironknee]

adaptation is a word that darwin uses a lot. ie the survival of the fittest

also, yes evolution does not star with apes, but from a single common ancestor...we can see this in DNA

evolution is a string of adaptations

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ironknee:
adaptation is a word that darwin uses a lot. ie the survival of the fittest
also, yes evolution does not star with apes, but from a single common ancestor...we can see this in DNA
evolution is a string of adaptations

Do you think an organism can just adapt physically because it needs to?
In my understanding mutations are what occur and if the mutation is beneficial it can become predominant in a large population (through replication/breeding what have you)

I think adaptation is the wrong word to use here a bird can't develop a stronger beak because it has to eat harder foods.

A bird can have a mutated beak that is larger and thus able to eat more food the others can't, thus passing his freakishly larger beak to his offspring, I think this is hard to grasp because we think of mutations as bad things (they usually are) but some beneficial ones get passed along. The other birds either find other food and live along side the other birds or they die out.

____ Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Do you think an organism can just adapt physically because it needs to?
In my understanding mutations are what occur and if the mutation is beneficial it can become predominant in a large population (through replication/breeding what have you)

I think adaptation is the wrong word to use here a bird can't develop a stronger beak because it has to eat harder foods.

A bird can have a mutated beak that is larger and thus able to eat more food the others can't, thus passing his freakishly larger beak to his offspring, I think this is hard to grasp because we think of mutations as bad things (they usually are) but some beneficial ones get passed along. The other birds either find other food and live along side the other birds or they die out.

____ Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast.

i agree adaptation is really an error (mutation) that just happens to help the survival of the species

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ironknee:
i agree adaptation is really an error (mutation) that just happens to help the survival of the species

I read something to this affect recently:

Micro-evolution is basically the process whereby a line of creatures or plants adapts to changing circumstances._ It is essentially natural selection at work - the process of change through the accumulation of mutations.
Macro-evolution is synonymous with the layman's definition of evolution - major changes over time resulting, it is believed, in ancestral lines that lead, for example, from crustasceans to dinosaurs to birds.

I do think micro leads to macro, and I think this aligns perfectly well with what we know this far, fossil records, "adaptations" of today, etc.

[BRussell]

Not all variation comes from mutations though. Biological diversity would be present even if there were no genetic mutations.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Not all variation comes from mutations though. Biological diversity would be present even if there were no genetic mutations.

Agreed, I don't think blonde hair in a family of brunettes is a mutation, or could it be classified as such? Was the original gene for blonde hair a mutation or is it now just switched on and always been there?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
All you've described is a change in features. You haven't described a different classification of physiology and anatomy, species, etc.

What some people call "macroevolution" is simply an accumulation of "microevolutionary" changes. If micro can occur, then given enough time, macro can (and will) as well.

If you take an object and make tiny, incremental changes to it over a long period of time, eventually you're going to have something that looks a lot different than what you started with.

If you take your parakeet, give it bigger talons, thicker feathers a larger body, stronger beak and it will be a totally different animal.

[mikellanes]

While I am still waiting a response, I would like to add this to the micro/macro adaption/evolution debate.

Where is the dividing line between "rich" and "poor"? At what dollar amount does that transition take place? $5? $5,000? $50,000? $500,000? Its relatively easy if I'm throwing up number here in huge chunks. But what about the following series:

$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
$10
$11
etc...

At what value does poor become rich?

I think it is exactly the same question with this macro/micro evolution thing. Its all just evolution.

Seems to me if you can accept micro evolution then you accept evolution as a whole.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:

At what value does poor become rich?

$1 Million, liquid.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
$1 Million, liquid.

I know your kidding, but if you spent $1 you would become poor? So $999,999 is poor and $1 million is rich, got it!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I know your kidding, but if you spent $1 you would become poor? So $999,999 is poor and $1 million is rich, got it!

It's all about the 7th digit (then 8th, 9th, etc).

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
What some people call "macroevolution" is simply an accumulation of "microevolutionary" changes. If micro can occur, then given enough time, macro can (and will) as well.

If you take an object and make tiny, incremental changes to it over a long period of time, eventually you're going to have something that looks a lot different than what you started with.

If you take your parakeet, give it bigger talons, thicker feathers a larger body, stronger beak and it will be a totally different animal.

And it's extremely difficult to truly comprehend the scope of time that we're talking about. The first simple life forms probably appeared on earth a couple billion years ago. A person wouldn't have enough time in their entire lifetime to even count that high. I think that's part of what makes evolution seem impossible to some. They're just not taking into account the incredible amounts of time that we're talking about.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I would pull up the evidence, but I assume you are kidding with the Lucy bit...

Personally, I would love to see this other evidence besides Lucy. I remember when I used to get a "Discover" magazine (I stopped because I'd get a 12 month subscription from them and in 6 months they would say "This is your last issue! Re-subscribe now!", and I would, but then the same crap happened again, and then one more time, so I just stopped subscribing...bastards) they always had these articles that featured Lucy. Now maybe this is because this was the biggest discovery that helped Evolution and wasn't many smaller discoveries that add up to a big picture; I don't know.

Anyway, what kind of evidence are we talking? Transitional fossils? Human characteristics (like the fish nostrils thing)? A combination of the above? And really, if we do have nostrils because of fish, and we evolved from an ape ancestor, did the ape ancestor evolve from a fish? This is something I really don't understand...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That's very arrogant of you, and in my experience, far off the mark. But then, that's your right, even if you're wrong.

I don't see anything arrogant about the statement "Humans are vain and have powerful imaginations."

To me, arrogance and vanity is believing that divine beings speak to and/or through me, that I could have a personal relationship with such a being, that such a being gives me moral authority, that such a being might give me eternal life, or that I can even perceive or define such a being. But if it's arrogant to regard those things as arrogant, then I guess I'm arrogant.

It might be assumed that I'm a humanist, but I think they're just as arrogant. I think humans in general are pretty goofy.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't see anything arrogant about the statement "Humans are vain and have powerful imaginations.

It might be assumed that I'm a humanist, but I think they're just as arrogant. I think humans in general are pretty goofy.

That's ok, I'm arrogant, and I can usually spot others who are with ease.

"To me, arrogance and vanity is believing that divine beings speak to and/or through me, that I could have a personal relationship with such a being, that such a being gives me moral authority, that such a being might give me eternal life, or that I can even perceive or define such a being. But if it's arrogant to regard those things as arrogant, then I guess I'm arrogant. "

Moral authority? Dear "God" no. I know what's right for me, but that's the extent of it.

Define such a being? Which one?

Eternal life? Do you want that?

As for perception and a personal relationship, that takes time and no small amount of effort, but it's nothing special.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Not all variation comes from mutations though. Biological diversity would be present even if there were no genetic mutations.

Yes, sometimes a genetic trait which may be useless or a disadvantage might suddenly become an advantage when climates and predators change. I would say this is still evolution.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Eternal life? Do you want that?

That subject always reminds me of this quote:

"Life's really pretty sad no matter what. The happiest people are probably underneath it pretty sad. Universally in Asia, where they believe in reincarnation, life is considered a curse. They hate it. They don't want to come back." John Fahey, 1939-2001

[ebuddy]

The reason I ask is that, AFAIK, most Christian denominations have "officially" accepted biological evolution, and yet you still see many members of those denominations rejecting it as if it somehow undercuts fundamental Christian belief.

Good points Brussell, but I wouldn't go quite that far. I believe the convoluted "theory of evolution" as understood by most to be both the diverging of genes (macro) with the combining of genes (micro) is disingenuous and undercuts the fundamentals of science. Diverging of genes is quite unique to combining genes, but it's great when you can include the unobserved (dogmatic) with the observed (scientific), give it a name like Biological Evolution, then package it and call it science. I disagree with this supposition. To be clear, if I'm to understand what I'm reading from some, I should know that "given enough time, macro evolution could occur". Unfortunately, matter does not break down (i.e. diverge) and increase in complexity. It breaks down. period.

I'm told unless a discovery is made to contradict the fact that micro over millenia begets macro-that my argument fails. Yet, science is supposed to rely on evidence and discovery. Hence, the term "theory of evolution." This has not been observed to the extent that we could give creedence to the "survival of fittest" template. Given this, at some time in our distant future we'd expect all fish to have nostrils and eventually grow into humans. There is just nothing to establish this ideal. Truth be told, there shouldn't be scant examples of transitional species, we should be littered with them. The problem here is that time becomes the dogma. All other "discoveries" must fall under the time presuppositions for all of this to work. Unfortunately, very little in the observed does. At the current rate of desertification for example, there should be no foliage, the moon shall have crashed wholly into the earth, you'd be living on top of your neighbor with not enough room for your children and some of those fish are sorrowfully behind the eight-ball. I find it unfortunate that these are taught and assumed as fact when they are not, nor can they be.

I'm still trying to figure out how the cleft palate and lip are beneficial to our species in our "progression".

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Personally, I would love to see this other evidence besides Lucy.

Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

About 55 specimens some as old as 4,100,000 years old, if you click on the names you can see enlarged fossil samples, as well as at least 10 references on the sites and the work's findings.

Here is an excellent comparison for people who think they are all ape fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Here is a timeline of when these were living, pretty interesting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs....html#timeline

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
[BI'm told unless a discovery is made to contradict the fact that micro over millenia begets macro-that my argument fails. Yet, science is supposed to rely on evidence and discovery. Hence, the term "theory of evolution." This has not been observed to the extent that we could give creedence to the "survival of fittest" template.

Evolution has been observed, the evidence throughout the world and through out distinct areas of science is overwhelming. Tell me do you agree that "micro" evolution is observable?

IF you do, then go back to my example and tell me at which number are you suddenly rich.

Given this, at some time in our distant future we'd expect all fish to have nostrils and eventually grow into humans.

Sorry, evolution does not work that way, you can not pre-determine the outcome it is based on survival of whatever mutations work and progress the species, some mutations don't add the the species yet they do no harm and can be passed on indefinitely.

Truth be told, there shouldn't be scant examples of transitional species, we should be littered with them.

NO, that is not the truth! I posted over 50 specimens of transitional fossils and those are only human, I can post thousands of fossils if you want to diverge out of the humanoid realm.

At the current rate of desertification for example, there should be no foliage, the moon shall have crashed wholly into the earth

This is dead wrong as well, and in fact has been pushes by people trying to discredit science, much like micro vs. macro, how bout you post something to back up these claims, I have had around 6 biology classes just in the last 2 years and have never heard of this utter crap, sounds like it came from a creationists pamphlet or AIG.

I'm still trying to figure out how the cleft palate and lip are beneficial to our species in our "progression". [/B]

Guess what? mutations don't have to be beneficial, most mutations aren't and they die out in nature if they are detrimental or they are carried on if they aren't harmful.

I would say a cleft palate in our society is not desirable and would lead to no or less breeding and reproduction on a whole, if they were desirable surely we would see even greater breeding and reproduction of clefts.

Funny, I remember a day when Evolution was total hog wash, not enough evidence to support itself, I remember when I first heard people being accepting of "micro" evolution because they couldn't deny it with all the evidence, now I think we are coming to the beginning when most people will start accepting Evolution more, yet still try to find a way to tie it in to what they want to believe. Hey Im all for it, these people are usually more open minded, believe what you want as long as the science is correct...

[mikellanes]

p.s. I am still waiting for Maury (RAILhead) to get back in the conversation about his parakeet.

So-far he has accepted it can evolve (adapt as he will only say) a stronger beak, stronger wings, and perhaps more? I am waiting for him to tell me at what point the transformation from parakeet to hawk would stop, what exact "adaption" would be too much for him to accept. Hopefully he will rejoin.

[ebuddy]

Evolution has been observed, the evidence throughout the world and through out distinct areas of science is overwhelming. Tell me do you agree that "micro" evolution is observable?

"micro" is entirely observable. We have constant reminders just in canine breeding alone that would support the micro-evolution claim. They are all canines however with distinct traits just as the "apes" they're calling hominids. I disagree with the premise of the question though, but before I get into this; I want you to know that I respect your credentials as a student of biology, but you must know findings exist to contradict this "science" and your textbooks do not always supply the contradictions. In many ways, this would be counter-productive to the education. Bible Studies for example, do not start off with Islamic law etc...you get the idea.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
"micro" is entirely observable. We have constant reminders just in canine breeding alone that would support the micro-evolution claim. They are all canines however with distinct traits just as the "apes" they're calling hominids. I disagree with the premise of the question though, but before I get into this; I want you to know that I respect your credentials as a student of biology, but you must know findings exist to contradict this "science" and your textbooks do not always supply the contradictions. In many ways, this would be counter-productive to the education. Bible Studies for example, do not start off with Islamic law etc...you get the idea.

I grew up in a strong Catholic family, I wound up in a mainstream Christian church whose views on evolution and my studies wound up with me leaving the faith and all faith all together. I have studied both sides and have a deep knowledge of Abrahamic and orthodox jewish religion, my studies have led me elsewhere and I struggled for a long time with this.

Since you think there is a clear divide why don't you tell me which of the ones I posted are apes which are humans?

What separates a doberman from a wolf, is it a single characteristic or is it many? what are they? Do you think the animals are separated at the Family? Genus? Species? What makes that distinction?

[UnixMac]

I have just one question..

If we evolved from Monkeys, then why are there still Monkeys running around out there?

Why didn't they evolve? At least they could have evolved 1/2 way ... but it seems like we have on one end of the animal spectrum Monkeys, and other the other extreme end (with no other company) Humans.

Kinda makes evolution a tough sell for me from a logical viewpoint.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
I have just one question..

If we evolved from Monkeys, then why are there still Monkeys running around out there?

Why didn't they evolve? At least they could have evolved 1/2 way ... but it seems like we have on one end of the animal spectrum Monkeys, and other the other extreme end (with no other company) Humans.

Kinda makes evolution a tough sell for me from a logical viewpoint.

wow!!!

i'm too tired to go into it right now...but hey. look at the poll 70 to 12

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by ironknee:
wow!!!

i'm too tired to go into it right now...but hey. look at the poll 70 to 12

Bush beat Kerry in the polls... do you support Bush?

in 1848, a poll would have called Blacks 1/2 of a human, was it right?


And btw... how do you know that all of the science that you are siting as proof of evolution wasn't placed there to fool you by God and to test your faith?

It could all be good science and useful in many ventures (like high tech), but the absolute truth may still lie beyond science.

Did you not read my quotes from Cosmologists Stephen Hawking and others earlier?
Or do you claim to be better educated than Hawking?

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Mithras:
There are many ways to use the word "God".

Einstein:


Hawking:


Schaefer, on the other hand, appears to be a Christian, which is a quite different interpretation of God.

Your quote from Hawking proves my point further. Hawking is a believer in God, bank on it. And he is a believer in a Omnipotent, All knowing (alpha and omega) God, not the version that Einstein subscribes to (a multi-cultural God). But at least even Einstein acknowledges a higher power.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
And btw... how do you know that all of the science that you are siting as proof of evolution wasn't placed there to fool you by God and to test your faith?

Would you then consider God a trickster? Are you sating there's a certain amount of duality within God's nature? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Heh, and you wonder why people don't take you seriously when you try and be "logical?"

Maury

The Catholic teaching (As we are the church who can claim to have been there when the Bible was assembled) is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, as written by men who were so inspired. The Gospel which IS the word of God is a whole different matter in that the words in red are the spoken words of Jesus (God).

The Bible wasn't assembled in is current form (more or less) until close to 400 years after the death of Christ. The various councils of the regional churches (Bishops) under the guidance Pontiff.

Brief history of the Bible...

year 125.... first copy of a bible assembled under Pope Telesphorus who was later martyred.

year 200.... Latin bible first emerges, possible origins Carthage.

350?.... Codex Vaticanus: earliest Christian Bible

year 350-400 Period of time between the 1st Christian Bible and the 1st Western Christian under various Popes..

382-384 - Pope Damasus I has Jerome revise and unify Latin Bibles

So the bible isn't as simple as "the word of God" that many believe it to be. This is why the teaching authority of the Church is so critical. Before there was a Bible, there still were Christians after all. And this is where many "protestants" are confused in their faith and understanding the history of their faith.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Did you not read my quotes from Cosmologists Stephen Hawking and others earlier?
Or do you claim to be better educated than Hawking?

What does belief in God have to do with evolution? What does Hawkings belief in God or lack of have to do with it either?

[ironknee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UnixMac:
Bush beat Kerry in the polls... do you support Bush?

no


in 1848, a poll would have called Blacks 1/2 of a human, was it right?


ok..

And btw... how do you know that all of the science that you are siting as proof of evolution wasn't placed there to fool you by God and to test your faith?


doesn't god have better things to do?



It could all be good science and useful in many ventures (like high tech), but the absolute truth may still lie beyond science.

who claimed absolute knowledge of truth? Science is all about testing and comfirming, ie u can't just say something is true, because some book told u so..



Did you not read my quotes from Cosmologists Stephen Hawking and others earlier?
Or do you claim to be better educated than Hawking?

i love hawkins..but i can draw better than he can

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
I have just one question..
If we evolved from Monkeys, then why are there still Monkeys running around out there?
Why didn't they evolve? At least they could have evolved 1/2 way ... but it seems like we have on one end of the animal spectrum Monkeys, and other the other extreme end (with no other company) Humans.
Kinda makes evolution a tough sell for me from a logical viewpoint.

Ill go there! I have some spare time

We didn't evolve from the monkeys that still exist today - so there is no reason for there not to be any monkeys. It's like asking: if we evolved from single-celled organisms, why are there still single-celled organisms today? Why aren't there only human beings?

But that question simply makes no sense. Just because one line of evolution from single-celled organisms resulted in us, that doesn't mean that no other lines of evolution could exist. Some apes evolved in a line that became us. Others branched off to chimpanzees, others branched off to gorillas, others branched off to orangutans, and so forth.

You seems to assume that evolution moves in a line form "lower" to "higher," and once a "higher" organism exists, then there must not be any reason for the "lower" organisms to exist. But that is a misunderstanding of evolution. The only "line" that exists is that from one adaptation to another. We are not "higher" than other organisms, we are just more adaptive and better suited to more environments than most primates (because of our brains and our ability to alter our environment to suit our needs). The creatures best able to survive are the ones that survive, not the "higher" species. Some times, the best adapted might be a single-celled creature that feeds off of sulfur, not the bipedal primate with the big brain.