How can we dispute macroevolution? People can argue that it is because it is beyond the span of one life time it can't be effectively messured - but then thats the great thing about writing and the genetic record. Darwin based his arguements on macroevolution - botanical and biological... for example plants and/or animals that have been effectively changed into a new species through domestication. Darwin wrote about the origin of species through natural selection - not spontaneous appearance; but a gradual favouring of mutations/traits that eventually would lead to a great enough alteration of an organism that it must be classified as a seperate species.

My point on that was that Darwin started from the position that a creator initiated the process. Also, I'm not disputing microevolution/adaption which seems to be what you're describing.

So, between the both above posters, what the hell are you actually saying?

A new species of a big trysanoris Rex was found in Utah, of the USA!

Not a meat eater, but a veggie freak.

So, who among any of us have the power to actually figure out what the heck actually happened?

New Mummy was found, said to be beautiful and a male!:)

Actually, We were promagateted from Aliens who built all of the Pyramids. Check the measurements and the points of North!

Egypt, Peru, Mexico and other parts of the world.

God, I love this shit!:cool:

Darwin was wrong about quite a few things - similar to Freud, however, he is credited for a pattern of thought that led to innovation in the field.

Why do you dispute macroevolution? Are you saying that dinosaurs did not become birds? Or did monkeys just not become humans?

If we can make it happen on organisms with shorter lifespans . . . why would you think it doesn't happen to those with longer lifespans? Or do you not understand what macro/microevolution refer to?

You cede some points that confuse me, because you seemingly contradict yourself - I'm genuinely curious.

I think what might seem contradictory is the difference between 1) my personal opinion and 2) what I consider otherwise logical but do not believe.

Personally: I believe that God created the universe (of course including original flora and fauna) as whole and complete. I also believe that adaptations and mutations occur, but do not support the theory that dinosaurs became birds or monkeys became humans.

Otherwise logical: I understand how one would come to the conclusion that dinosaurs became birds and monkeys became humans; especially from Darwin's perspective that matter originated with an other creator. My question for those that ascribe to this view (creator or not) is this:

Where did original matter come from?

AKA_Monet posited that scientists are really not concerned with this area of study - instead they are most interested in what is occurring at the time of their research.

Regardless of the origin of the universe, we now have scientific principles by which to understand our world.

No, let me clarify myself on the "origin of matter"...

I think most hardcore physicists are interested in forming new matter--or anti-matter for that matter... (HaHa--play on words)

But I think we all agree there blocks that were built upon building blocks to form so on and so forth...

I think where you and others differ is who is the "Initiator" of this process...

For me, can I say within certainty it was a higher power as a scientist, not really...

For me, can I say within my heart it was a higher power as a spiritual being, probably so...

But that's just me...

Astronomers measure how "far" and the "density" of an object based on several parameters: such a light years away, spectra, gravitational pull--that can be measured, but I don't know how, sounds, electromagnetic resonance imaging and other things that go waaay over my head--interesting to me, but still go over my head...

So that's how they come up with their Big Bang Theory, String Theory, Charmed Quarks, etc. They are one looney bunch of nerdy geeks that are very sweet folks and party way too much to pass the days. But it hey, it works for them...

I only know because I was a wannabe math, physics, engineering major in college, but I passed with an A+ in Molecular Biology...

Also, Darwin may have had his "Origins..." but we neglect our little priest :rolleyes: (now that's funny in this discussion), Gregor Mendel who developed Mendalian Genetics with his pea pods flowers where we get Aa X AA and heterozygous dominant and homozygous dominant--and all the recessive stuff at a ratio of 9:3:3:1...

It is the manipulation he never fathomed... But it was his concepts that brought us functional genomics as we know it today...

Right Girl! I was trying to say that "Initiator" of this process" cannot be determined by science, so that is not an area where most scientists (save a few crazies, as you point out ;) ) do not spend valuable time trying to determine this.

So, "evolutionists" and I are debating from different perspectives. If you believe that there was an intelligent originator or not, and you believe that all things came about through macroevolution, I'm saying that I understand that belief and it makes sense outside the context of biblical Genesis.

And, I also understand that biblical Genesis can be interpreted to support macroevolution in this sense. It can be interpreted in different ways. The study of evolution does not disprove the existence of God - it only brings into question the participation of God in the development of the cosmos.

Personally, while I can see how logically one might come about the belief in macroevolution, that is not my heartfelt and logical understanding of how the universe came about.

Anyway, my question remains - regardless of one's belief in an active and personal God - where did original matter come from in order for everything to be formed?

The question doesn't attempt to discredit the findings of science, only to honestly try to discover where it all came from. And, AKA_Monet, you've put forth a sentiment that I think a lot of scientists have right now: personally, you believe in an intelligent originator; but, as a scientist, you MUST be skeptical, as skepticism/wonder is at the heart of productive study.

Re: Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Especially since we had it at 8:00 a.m. every day. There was never enough caffeine.

If everything was created whole and complete, why do we have a record of human progression, up until the current homo sapiens sapiens? Why can we see birds moving through different forms, developing feathers and reducing size and bone density, until flight became the exclusive form of motion rather than an exception?

Are you just believing in this notion, in spite of evidence to the contrary, because it fits you spiritually? That's completely fine if you are, but you seem to be doing the "I know all the evidence points toward X, and I'm fine with you believing X, but I believe Y" dance, and I genuinely want to understand.

Note that almost every (non-evangelical) Christian denomination accepts macroevolution as correct, including the notoriously stodgy Vatican (this point is also geared toward your "plenty of non-Christians believe in intelligent design" comments earlier).

Where did homo erectus come from?

Personally, you're asking a question that has no 'correct' answer - our understanding of the nature of matter is still incomplete. This sets up a false analogy, set out by many, many intelligent design proponents - it goes something like:

If you walk through the woods and see a rock, it could have reached that point through any variety of methods. If you instead see a watch, you must assume that it was dropped or otherwise left there by another person, as no set of circumstances otherwise could result in that particular item existing.

You're making a version of this argument extensible to the existence of the universe - namely, if we can't explain it, it must be due to God.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing that God created the universe in order to set the process of life in motion - this would be akin to God creating the legos with which to build the space station and all that good stuff. However, it is patently incorrect to imply that since there's no other explanation, it must be God - it's a twisting of Occam's Razor to incorrect use.

The counter to that would be simply asking why it couldn't just exist? Can you see how strange that argument sounds? Can you apply that to any other arguments you've read in this thread?

Excellent, excellent book. Having been to Haiti, I found it particularly fascinating.

I think this may be a useful distinction. I would call Genesis myth, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's true.

Again, we have a conflict of meaning of words: in common parlance "myth" means a fabricated story, something that itsn't true. In this sense, myth = fiction.

But in a more traditional sense, and in the sense used in a religious and cultural context, this hardly conveys the meaning of myth. In this religious/cultural context, a myth is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. (Thanks dictionary.com for this good definition.) Whether a myth is factual or not is almost irrelevant -- what matters is what it means.

Understood this way, a myth can be very true without being factual. The truth is not found in the facts of the story but in the meaning of the story for those who hear it.

The meaning of Genesis? God created the world and all that is in it, and declared it good. Humanity rebelled against God, creating a rift that God nevertheless reached across to claim a people through whom the rift would be healed. Given this meaning, the actual facts of how God created the world, while interesting, are irrelevant to the truth that Genesis conveys.

Maybe we need to get people reading more Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. They understood the role of myth and its connection to Christiatinity quite well.

I'd also add Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, although he doesn't so much 'connect' with Christianity as extract from it some commonalities with other cultures, as well as examining the bases for various creation mythology - he does some very interesting things, and all require the useful context of 'myth' (ie not 'fabricated').

Hmmm, that's interesting. Either I'm having a brain fart moment or I've just never heard of the one where man & woman were created together. Where can this be found?

I am, of course, assuming by Adam & Eve you mean that God created Adam, then used his rib to create Eve.

Genesis 1:24-28 described God creating humanity in his image -- "male and female he created them" -- on the 6th day of creation, after the plants and animals.

Genesis 2:4-24 describes God creating Adam (which simply means "human being") "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no one to till the field." God then plants the Garden of Eden and places Adam in it, but finds that he needs a helper, so he creates "Adamah" -- "formed of Adam" -- from Adam's side. (The implication being that completeness is found in the uniting of male and female.) "Adamah" is later called "Eve," which comes from the Semitic word meaning "life" or "living," suggesting that as mother she gives life to those who come after her.

Genesis 1.26-30, specifically, Genesis 1.27

""So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."



Yep.