Human Evolution - the Future...

[stevie]

hahahahaha, mildly.

in what ways will humans evolve in the future?

physically and mentally?

possibly less hair, mildly different genitals, huge asses, and generally more intelligent?

possibly

[lisztisforkids]

Acually human evolution has completley grounded to a halt. All living things have evolved by the procces of natural selection, and modern medicine, communication, has all but eliminated natural selection. The only way humans can evlove further I believe (and this put a shiver up my spine) is through genetic manipulation. Do you want your kid to be fast? Strong? Musically talented? Its all coming very soon.

[prometheus]

Listforkids, you are right. People seem to take evolution for granted and do not understand how it works. Evolution only exists if people, and thus their genes, are eliminated while other people/genes prosper.

In our world having less hair doesn't mean you have more offpring. People evolved less hair because it was no longer needed and the fact that they had obselete hair required extra energy.

Actually, if you look at the people that have lots of children then these people are often poor, religious, etc. If you observe world wide you will see that a lot of people are asian. So asian traits are getting more dominant in the human gene pool. If you look more closely than interbreeding will result in the disappearance of people with red hair. Then people with blonde hair and blue eyes will also dissapear.

Interbreeding has also other effects. The gene pool of different kinds of ethnicities reunite and refresh each other. These apperance of these people will be different and new. This has already happened. We have people that aren't 'white' or 'black', for example. The intermixing of these gene pools are generally good.

But, people that just have weak genes and would have been eliminated in the past have no kinds of problems in this world and they will procreate and their genes will survive. You could say it is even worse, babies that wouldn't even survive childbirth, because of genetic deficts, in nature do survive and procreate. You could say that the human gene pool is degenerating.

If a flu pandemic does break break out and kill off a lot of people then the genes that help the immune system resist this virus will become more dominant. So evolution does happen.

But this state in human evolution will only be temporary. Our civilization will break down eventually, maybe a large number of them will die, and humans will again live more animallike lives, which natural selection returning.

If this doesn't happen genetic manipulation, which is extremely powerful and possible extremely dangerous will become compulsory. Which will probably result in the rich of the rich adjusting their DNA. And then that person would have to pick a GMed mate otherwise most of the effort would be wasted. So that would result in a genetically superious higher class, a new kind of human. And as it stands now, a few people already have almost all power and money. So there would be two kinds of humans, a ruling class, and a kind of genetic inferior more animallike 'slave'-like working class.

So in any case, a human utopia is an oxymoron.

[pianistimo]

there are approximately 133 different species of monkey's.  we are all of the same species.  human.  nothing has changed since adam and eve.  cain didn't kill abel because he was bald or had something that cain didn't physically.  he was simply jealous.  that's all that motivates people to kill.  manipulating genes for the purpose of eliminating those that are deemed unnecessary is a God-move.  why do humans think they can play God?  because, they want to undermine Him and take power for themselves.  but, they never had the power to produce life!  so, when all is destroyed, what will they do then?

[prometheus]

Since when did Adam and Even exist?


Humans already make a 'God-move' when they save a infant with some genetic defict God has 'blessed' on it.

I don't understand the ethical argument. So if humans achive the technology to create a life form, would we also gain 'God-status' and the ablity to be judged on the level of a God, meaning we can get away with much more?

If you look at the human design, surely a human can do much better once the technology is achived. For example, our eyes a wired backwards. And there are many more stupid flaws because of the way darwinism works.

[pianistimo]

?  darwinism was proved wrong about 10 years ago, and i have a recent national geographic that goes into the details.  no matter.  we're even if you don't believe that adam and eve existed - but it is interesting that some scientists do believe that genetically it does look possible that we all came from the same original parents (adam and eve) the progenitors of the human race.  it makes sense to me that all would come from a single source.  but, that's a creationist idea and probably makes sense to you that there just suddenly were lots and lots of humanoids that gradually lost only the extreme hair on their backs and faces. 

i understand the sadness of those who have deformed or premature babies.  i don't understand it all either.  it must be a tremendous pain for parents - and i certainly have nothing against scientific advances to help them - but not to determine who will live and die.  that's unfair.  some handicapped people live a very long life and are an encouragment to others.

don't think that science and creation are at odds.  just that people want to decide other people's fate.  i don't see this as a morally right thing to do.  if someone dies after requesting surgery - that was their choice.  but, if someone is forced to be aborted - that's a life decision.  the fact that christian have more children is not because they are inferior decision makers, imo.  i think- they simply accept responsibility for their actions.  in some countries they are trying to reverse a trend of limiting the number of children in a family because the country dies out.  and, what about a whole generation in china that is mostly male (and needs more females)?  messing with genes and babies and all doesn't seem to have good results.

[chopiabin]

?  darwinism was proved wrong about 10 years ago, and i have a recent national geographic that goes into the details.  no matter.  we're even if you don't believe that adam and eve existed - but it is interesting that some scientists do believe that genetically it does look possible that we all came from the same original parents (adam and eve) the progenitors of the human race.  it makes sense to me that all would come from a single source.  but, that's a creationist idea and probably makes sense to you that there just suddenly were lots and lots of humanoids that gradually lost only the extreme hair on their backs and faces. 

i understand the sadness of those who have deformed or premature babies.  i don't understand it all either.  it must be a tremendous pain for parents - and i certainly have nothing against scientific advances to help them - but not to determine who will live and die.  that's unfair.  some handicapped people live a very long life and are an encouragment to others.

don't think that science and creation are at odds.  just that people want to decide other people's fate.  i don't see this as a morally right thing to do.  if someone dies after requesting surgery - that was their choice.  but, if someone is forced to be aborted - that's a life decision.  the fact that christian have more children is not because they are inferior decision makers, imo.  i think- they simply accept responsibility for their actions.  in some countries they are trying to reverse a trend of limiting the number of children in a family because the country dies out.  and, what about a whole generation in china that is mostly male (and needs more females)?  messing with genes and babies and all doesn't seem to have good results.

OMG!!! Enlighten me on the amount of biological study you've done. I can't wait to hear about it.

In the meantime, I'll correct you. Darwin wasn't "proved wrong", his theories have been expanded upon. The generally accepted evolutionary theory is that of punctuated equilibrium, and I've read that little idea about to human progenitors - Janice linked me to it. The results were COMPLETELY inconclusive AND were funded by creationists.

It's so ridiculous to me that the bible and Christianity have been "proven wrong" to a much higher degree than nearly any scientific theory, yet you are only willing to believe "science" (or whatever you call theories based on untestable hypotheses) when it seems to work out in your favor.

[pianistimo]

i happened to take a psych class at cal state - where we dissected a sheep brain.  there are similarities that people find in animal brains and human brains - but they are entirely separate.  prove to me that they are so similar that we could say they come from the same gene pool.

if you are a better scientist than me, you wouldn't pick at my points. you'd just make a scientific statement that would convince me.  so far, you haven't.

[Bob]

I think evoluation is still occurring.  As long as there are those mistakes in duplicating cells.  It seems built in.  Those that don't have "mutant" cells every now and then probably don't survive.

I think we can control what is selected.  If you've got bad eyes, we can correct that so we have more people suriving with bad eyesight.  We selected for it.

Society determines what is important and who is sucessful.  A centruy ago we probably had more people who were physically stronger.  Today, we probably have more intelligent people.  Not that this is evolutionary.  It's just the numbers in the population.

What stays?  Probably anything considered "good" because those people are more likely to be successful.  Intelligence, looks, ability to get along with other people... anything.

I know evoluation can happen fast.  One change that produces something that works better in the environment and that new version repopulating.  Voila.  I wonder if we can see that happening though.

Maybe something with humans and technology would be another step?

Of course if people are controlling the changes themselves, then we don't have to rely on those random mutations occuring.  I can't say changing a gene and getting something "nice" doesn't sound good to me.  Change a few genes... smarter, faster, stronger...  maybe even "more" human.


What intrigues me is the "evolution" of things.  All those ancient cultures that "discovered" a flute by making a long tube with holes in the right place.  You see ancient keyboard form that look very similar to ours.  Even the way music is put together -- like a scale for instance.  It makes me wonder if all this is "inevitable" in some way.  Are all the instruments basically "inevitable" in that they would be created?  If someone didn't invent them, they would have eventually been invented by someone else?  Which makes me wonder if things are just kind of sitting out there and people aren't really "inventing" them so much as "finding" of "discovering" them.   Which makes me wonder what other stuff is sitting out there waiting to be discovered.

Which ties in with human evolution.

Which makes me wonder where all this eventually leads. (Sounds like science fiction at some point though.)

[chopiabin]

No...I never said I was a great scientist. And you're apparently too set in your ways to believe anything but what you want. We share 99% of our DNA with gorillas. Nearly every living organism can revert to the glycolysis process. And psychology is not evolutionary theory.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,1528.0.html

Read some of this topic.

[pianistimo]

just so you don't think i am too set in my ways, i have a friend back in arizona who is into astronomy and believes something totally different.  but, he liked to discuss - so we would 'reason' - even though he was more scientific - and i was kinda 'by the eye.'  it's just interesting how people come to conclusions, though, because there are things that have been believed for years like 'the process of natural selection' that are overshadowed by newer thoughts.  for some, it totally disproves the previous idea and any future (because a lie was obviously brought in).

as i see it, you simply cannot disprove God.  take the organ of the eye.  it is so very complicated.  www.creationdesign.org/Impossibles.html   sometimes darwinism doesn't go into the little details, but considers the 'whole' good enough.  who cares if we share a certain percentage of DNA.  genetically, we are still different.  our brains uncode material in a much different way than animals.  how is this so?  God made us 'like Him.'  not like the animal.

[chopiabin]

just so you don't think i am too set in my ways, i have a friend back in arizona who is into astronomy and believes something totally different.  but, he liked to discuss - so we would 'reason' - even though he was more scientific - and i was kinda 'by the eye.'  it's just interesting how people come to conclusions, though, because there are things that have been believed for years like 'the process of natural selection' that are overshadowed by newer thoughts.  for some, it totally disproves the previous idea and any future (because a lie was obviously brought in).

as i see it, you simply cannot disprove God.  take the organ of the eye.  it is so very complicated.  www.creationdesign.org/Impossibles.html   sometimes darwinism doesn't go into the little details, but considers the 'whole' good enough.  who cares if we share a certain percentage of DNA.  genetically, we are still different.  our brains uncode material in a much different way than animals.  how is this so?  God made us 'like Him.'  not like the animal.

Evolution of the Eye:
   

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

[chopiabin]

Pianistimo, all your link does is try to impress people who don't understand evolutionary theory with how "difficult" it is to "make" an eye. It seems really naive to think that just because it seems difficult, that means it was designed. That doesn't even make sense.

[lisztisforkids]

Pianistimo,
    While I respect your faith, saying things like 'Human evoultion was proved wrong 10 years ago' is absolutley absurd. Evolution is the binding theory and center piece for Biology and Genetics. Saying that Evolution is wrong would mean that you would be completley disregarding not only Genetics and Biology, but also the fields of Archaeology, Anthropology, Geology, and Astrophysics. Evolution is nearly unaimously accepted by all the scientist and members of these fields. The only people that oppose Evolution, are Christian Creationists and the members of the pseudo science 'Intelligent Design'.  Creationist use Intelligent Design as a weapon against Evolution. But Intelligent Design is nothing more than merely saying 'its so complicated, a creator must have made it'. Intelligent Design is not legitimate science.  

Its is extremely easy to see genetic similarities among Humans and animals, and there is a lot of similarity. We can even see it more easily, look at a monkey, than look in the mirror. Look at the ealry stages of embrtos in Humans, Pigs, Salamnders, Cats, and a host of other animals. Not only do they resemble each other extremely closely. But more importantly they all have gills. This lends support to the theory of common descent. Common descent being that we all came from a single ancestor.  I can give you more examples if you like.

Natural Selection, the force that moves Evolution, has been observed everywhere. Most famously, the Galapagos Finches. But lets take another example, Malaria in Africa: In Africa, Malaria is a common and lethal disease. But there are many people that have a specific gene that helps prevent Malaria. So, while Malaria kills people that dont have this gene, the people that do survive and live to pass it on to the next generation. Eventually, Malaria would have been phased out in Africa if it wasent for Modern Medicine.

Please dont say that Evolution is flat wrong and that Adam and Eve are the parents of the human race. This is foolishness. If evolution is wrong, (and its not) than what seperates the Muslim or Hidu, or Norse myths from the Christian ones?

If you want a debate on Evolution I will give you one.

[ada]

oh my god please, please, please don't tell me there are creationists on this forum! This is so distressing.  I'm not a frequent poster here but I often come and check the forum out and find it extremely useful and helpful, not to mention entertaining.  

I don't think talk about creationism belongs here, and I don't think we should be dignifying this ignorant fundamentalist twaddle with replies (I know I know, I am, but I'm so upset to see it discussed here).

Aren't there plenty of looney creationist forums where this sort of flat earth nonsense belongs? Why oh why sully PF with it??

Wasn't there once some religion free policy here? If not, can we please consider it? Does anyone agree?

If creationists start infiltrating PF I for one will be cancelling my membership.

[lisztisforkids]

Pianistimo,

Nobody here is trying to diprove God. You can have Evolution and God.

[pianistimo]

Darwin himself confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all it's inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic abberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

since i am not a scientist (more of an observer of things seen with the naked eye) - i believe in a fairly simplified version of science.  dog and cat science.  from the dog:  "you feed me, you shelter me, you pet me.  therefore, you must be God."  from the cat:  "you feed me, you shelter me, you pet me.  therefore, I must be God."

faith and science are not opposed really, i don't think.  it's just that we haven't discovered everything yet.  there are holes.  how can something (evolution) be said to take thousands of years - and then gradually textbooks start saying - "well, some things take relatively few years and happen extrememly quickly." also, the general dna of things has a definite pattern.  so what if there are mutations.  are they always good?  or, do the mutated things die if more than 3 mutations of the dna are done at once.  take the fruitfly that was messed with.  it has two wings but the second set don't work.  all that proves to me, is that some scientist in a lab is messing with God's creation.

[pianistimo]

dear ada,  please note that i did not start this thread.  and, if someone wants to prove what they are saying - they usually hold some sort of two way conversation.

by the way...some creationists are wonder how far evolutionists are going.  i mean - what about cloning.  is this something less to talk about?  i suppose that should be banned.

[lisztisforkids]

Pianistmo,
                   Since you are so sure that Evolution is wrong. Please prove to me with real, not creationist and intelligent deisgn nonsense, really what happend.

[pianistimo]

after you prove that it did.  but, i like your idea that science and faith can/could be compatible. 

spirit is non-living/breathing.  so how can i prove that spirit combines with our brains to make us 'like God' when i personally haven't met God.  I have been baptized and feel the effects of change of spirit (reading God's word and listening to the Spirit).  but, could i explain that?  probably no more that a scientist could explain things to me and have me fully understand the intricacies of the magnetic pull of the earth.  although i have read that it must be fairly young because of the 'decay' that it shows.  also, the population of the earth would be HUGE if we didn't start with two people about 6000 years ago.  even if every 89 years 1/3 of the world population dies off - we would not sustain as many people as would be living if the earth were MUCH older or we started with many more people.

what is our destiny if we have evolved.  devolving again?  how could we get to be this good if it is 'natural selection' with no goal in mind (just nature selecting what it wants to survive).  survival is different than thriving.  can you imagine what life would be like with one eye, one arm etc.  one eye would help us see in a keener fashion.

[lisztisforkids]

If we started with just 2 people. Than why is there such variety among the human race?
why is there the Chinese? or White Europeans? or Black Africans? And how in 7,000 years would humanity have evolved such different cultures and spread over the earth? No. Adam and Eve is immposible just because its so illogical. Please read Jared Diamods
'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. You might be able to learn a lot from it.

[lau]

Please please. Not everything has to be logical. It's just that your human mind cannot fathom this information. God was never created, he was just there. I do not believe in evolution. The main prospects of life are not within our race, I wouldn't suggest engaging in such materials.

Best Wishes,

Lau

[pianistimo]

lau is probably right!  but, i always try to give the benefit of the doubt.  next time i am at barnes and noble, i will look at guns, germs, and steel.  my son might raise an eyebrow - but, who knows.  i once saw a bible by his bed and almost had a heart attack.

[ada]

pianistimo

Firstly I apologise if my tone is rude. I do not want want to argue about creationsim, there's simply no discussion. Some believe, some don't.

Cloning, on the other hand, I will talk about. In Australia we are just days out of the report of an indepent commission of review into stem cell research and cloning legislation.

The review is likely to uphold the current ban on reproductive cloning but may or may not lift restrictions on therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, which would potentially clear the way for the creation of new embryonic stem cel lines, advances in reproductive technology and therapeutics based on an individual genetic perfect match.

You may be aware that Australia has entered into free trade agreement with the US and some legal experts here believe this will hamper the development of our stem cell technologies and possibly even stall moves to lift the cloning ban. This is why the US looney religious right (I am not suggesting you are a representative) concerns me. It's evil and sinister and no, I am not going to start talking about the policies of one George W Bush. And yes, I know Australia is a lackey of the US, to our moral, intellectual and international detriment.

So what I am saying is yes, cloning is good, I have thought about this ad nauseum (it is part of my job). A clone is no different to an identical twin. I do think sadly life is expendable, but that's the way it is. If I go tomorrow it's not going to make one iota of difference to the world, I will be replaced, we're just little packages of DNA, that's all.


We're not special or different to a bit of mould or bacteria, except we are less efficient biological machines and we have evolved brains that have cursed us with the ability to think and make up ideas about "gods" who created us in seven days and punished evil women because they deserved it, and think ourselves much bigger and important than we are.

[lau]

cloning isn't good. Not every clone comes out fine. Some clones come out sickely disfigured and deformed. And have to live like that knowing they were a failed clone experiment. We didn't make up God, but we certainly made up gods. A bit of bacteria or mold has no soul and little intellgence, thats the only difference.

Best slob,

Lau

[ada]

Who says humans have souls or intelligence? I'd like to see the evidence! I certainly haven't seen any souls floating around and not much sign of any intelligence, unless you class greed,  aggression, bigotry, war, torture, destruction of the planet and an insistence on returning people like bush and howard to office as intelligence.

And you've got the wrong idea about cloning. We're not talking reproductive cloning. We're talking cloning a blastocyst (a clump of cells) which can be used as a source of stem cells to save lives and cure disease (potentially, this is yet to be proved)  without the nasty ethical issues of destroying what would otherwise turn into a baby.

And if I can be picky,  what do you mean "some clones come out sickly disfigured and deformed"? I wasn't aware that anyone in the world has been able to to create a human clone that ended up being born and growing up, deformed or otherwise. It simply hasn't been done, we don't have the means, the will or the technology yet.

And opposition to abortion and euthanasia by the religious right is responsible for bringing plenty of "sickly and deformed' individuals into the world and keeping them alive. Please note I'm not advocating euthansia of the imperfect, just making a point.

The koreans claim to have cloned an embryo and then destroyed it, but that's the closest anyone has got. And we've cloned the odd sheep, cow, horse, dog and fruitfly.

But reproductive human cloning is banned around the world and is likely to remain that way in the immediate future.

With great respect,  that's what wrong with religion, it leads people to make uninformed sweeping statements about things they don't understand.

[contrapunctus]

Here are the facts:

Humans came from early hominids in North Africa, hence North Africa is where we are from.

All evolution states is that under a certain condition, a bad gene is replaced by a good gene in the gene pool so that the species will survive.

It is entirely possible that God could have been along side evolution setting the required conditions on the planet so that evolution would eventually form humans. I even believe in this theory.

Science attempts to prove God exists, not the other way around. For more info on this concept I would recommend reading Aquinas' Summa Thoelogica or the many papers Newton wrote on the subject. Einstein believed this theory also: he was a Jew.

[lisztisforkids]

Here are the facts:

Humans came from early hominids in North Africa, hence North Africa is where we are from.

All evolution states is that under a certain condition, a bad gene is replaced by a good gene in the gene pool so that the species will survive.

It is entirely possible that God could have been along side evolution setting the required conditions on the planet so that evolution would eventually form humans. I even believe in this theory.

Science attempts to prove God exists, not the other way around. For more info on this concept I would recommend reading Aquinas' Summa Thoelogica or the many papers Newton wrote on the subject. Einstein believed this theory also: he was a Jew.

Firstly, I apologize to many if I offended you. I diid not mean to. We should put aside this evolution vs. creationism because Ada's right, people attitudes are not going to change.

Contrapunctus,
Sorry to be rude but some your information is false. Evolution is not about replacing a bad gene. Is about which gene survives under the current conditions to survive to the next generation(natural selection). Science does not attempt to prove or diprove god existenece (although many scientist from many points of view have tried).

[pianistimo]

creationism gives hope for a future.  who wants to be like a piece of mold or bacteria.

with satellite imaging, it's been possible to locate most biblical sites mentioned in the bible.  how could these places be real places - yet the scripture be untrue.  no one has disproven the bible.  it has to be scientifically proven for some scientist to believe, but they don't want to take the time or effort (and some have systematically destroyed evidence in varioius places because they don't want it). 

the biblical site most likely for the garden of eden is in iraq.  the four rivers mentioned (two of which are STILL extant today in iraq) had channels that could be seen under layers of sediment.  the city of babylon was under reconstruction by saddam hussein.  the ancient city of ur is somewhere around there.  so many biblical sites are ACTUAL sites in geography.  WHY IS THIS? 

and, if natural selection was involved in language, why didn't we take the easy route and all have one language.  God divided the languages at babel!  it was something given to us (language) and then again at the flood, the different races are mentioned as being included in noah and his sons.  i don't understand why evolutionists would find the general human race to be able to come from a single pair of people a difficult concept.  it seems more plausible than apes.  and, it would reinforce the idea that no one is better than another.  that we all have the same great great .... grandparents.

i don't doubt God can do whatever He decides He wants to do at any time.  it can be fairly confusing for us.  take for example a lake high up on a mountain.  i once hiked back in the chugach mountains in anchorage - and found a crystal clear lake way high up in the mountains (it looked like run off from snow and possibly glacier water).  there were little minnows in it.  now how did little minnows get into a lake way up there, i have no idea.  of course, one might say, well maybe someone brought them up there.  maybe they did.  considering the remoteness of the location, this has always made me think that whatever God wants to do, He does.  we don't always understand everything. 

[lisztisforkids]

Pianistimo, I apologized earlier, but know I take it back,

I have hope for a future, and I am not a Creationist. I am sorry, but much of the Bible has been disproven. Its only Christians  that beleive in it whole heartedly and with blind dogma. You know nothing of Evolution.Do not say evolution is wrong when you know nothing about how it works. Natural Selection is Biological, it has nothing to do with languages. As human population drifted and seperated over time, languages devolped differntly from people to people. Bable is just a fairy tale. Correct me if I am wrong here, I am not sure, but wasent Noahs flood after Bable? If thats true than how can a few people hold and pass on the thousands of different languages?

Please explain to me in detail why there are so many different races of people, and not just White Caucasians or Chinese. But many micro races such as Pacific Islanders and Alskan Inuit. How did a few people after Noahs flood populate the earth? and with such variety of culture? And why dident they retain Christianity?Noahs flood is absolutley foolish. Why do you beleive in such blind dogma? If there was evidence for creationism than creationism would be the norm, not Evolution. Please give me real answers, not 'Because god wnted it that way', or 'I have faith'.

[lisztisforkids]

And, what makes Christianity right from all the other major religons?. Absolutley nothing.

[maul]

She believes it because it's been embedded in her mind since she was a child. To deny blatant facts and logic for the sake of a two thousand year old book is nothing more than brainwashing. I believe in God, but not a man-made interpretation of God. God is infinite, shapeless... something that we humans cannot even begin to comprehend. God is everything. To deny science is to deny God. God, science, evolution all co-exist. Christians hold a very narrow point of view. They apply human-made limitations on God and constantly contradict themselves. Instead of studying God's infinite creation and using it to it's full potential (stem-cell research, etc.), they choose to put limits on something that is limitless. Thinking that the Earth is only 5,000 years old and fossils are Satan trying to trick us is really getting ridiculous. Quit taking the bible literally please. Open your eyes.

[rc]

Religion's popping up every other thread here. I'm remembering the old guy from 'Big Fish' saying something along the lines of "don't bring up politics or religion, because you never know who you will upset". By my experience, it takes a special effort to hold a discussion about such deep held convictions without having it degrade into an arguement. Even then, the best possible outcome is agreeing to disagree.

Well... I don't think of science and faith in opposition, they're both good in their own ways. Take science literally, because it tries to deal in concrete matters, and faith by definition can't be proven or disproven. I have my own beliefs, but I don't worry about it too much because of that. To me, science and religion have a lot of overlap.

Religion is a useful thing as well. All the rules and guidelines help people live a better life. But sometimes is open to interpretation, ever met someone who's "Christian only when it suits them"?

Dogma isn't for me, though much of it's in good intention, some is just weird and arbitrary. It reminds me of when I was a kid and my Dads answer for everything was "Because I said so"... "Because the bible says so" isn't a real reason, it's faith-based and only applies to those of that faith. Your preaching is heard by all, but only had any meaning to those already converted.

I say evolution is still doing its thing, natural selection makes a lot of sense. Even if we're not so much fighting to stay alive, to stay ahead or to stay clever enough not to get hit by a car, in some way down the road is linked to survival... I also accept the theory that we're gene-machines, but I don't see it as such a bleak thing. To me, it's all the more reason to build a good life and raise my future children properly. Instead of going for quantity of children carrying on the genetics, have quality. In effect, adhering to the family values of any religion.

Speaking of evolution, there are reasons why religion has survived this long.

[prometheus]

?  darwinism was proved wrong about 10 years ago, and i have a recent national geographic that goes into the details.  no matter.  we're even if you don't believe that adam and eve existed

Hahaha... Slick as an eel?

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

I happened to take a psych class at cal state - where we dissected a sheep brain.  there are similarities that people find in animal brains and human brains - but they are entirely separate.  prove to me that they are so similar that we could say they come from the same gene pool

Humans share genes with every creature on this planet. I don't really understand your point. Everyone knows all creatures on this planet are similar. And what have you done. Dissected a sheep brain. What would you know now? Did you also dissect a human brain?

https://www.genetics.gsk.com/kids/factoids_kids/fact09.htm

I have to prove the creatures on this planet share genetic material? What absurdity is this? Haven't you taken any biology class, ever? You already know this is true, why would I have to prove it? Also, humans and sheep do not come from the same gene pool.

You do not seem to phantom the way I used the word. When I looked at human evolution I had to evaluate the state of human genes, not just the genes of one individual, but of all genes of all humans, the human gene pool. So in other words, all genetic material availible to Homo Sapiens.

if you are a better scientist than me, you wouldn't pick at my points. you'd just make a scientific statement that would convince me.  so far, you haven't.

1) Organisms must make copies of themselves and those copies need to inherit traits of their parents.

This is a fact? Do I need to prove live forms reproduce? No wait, do I need to prove live forms exist? Do I need to prove DNA?

2) There must be a range of different traits in the population of entities, and there must be a mechanism for introducing new variations into the population.

Do I need to prove variation exist in nature? Do I need to prove that something can't be copied without ever making an error?

3) Inherited traits must somehow affect the ability of the entities to reproduce themselves, either by survival, or natural selection, or by ability to produce offspring by finding partners, or sexual selection.

Do I need to prove selection? I don't think so.

If these above things are true, then Darwinism exists. Darwinism is an effective scientific theory. It even makes correct predictions. So we know all live could have evolved into the state it is in now because of Darwinism. We don't know for sure it happened that way, but that is irrelevant. Logic dictates we assume it is because there is no logical alternative, actually there is no alternative at all.

think evoluation is still occurring.  As long as there are those mistakes in duplicating cells.  It seems built in.  Those that don't have "mutant" cells every now and then probably don't survive.

You are right about the first bit. Even without natural selection, humans will change a bit. But without selection, Darwinism doesn't work. You could say we would devolve, degenerate, evolve. But not something with the constructive power of Darwinism.

People without mutant cells have perfectly normal chances of survival. Actually, all people have mutant genes already.

as i see it, you simply cannot disprove God.

True, but the reason for this is aquired by simple logical deduction. You can never disprove something that doesn't exist. The fact that you can't disprove God is totally meaningless. You can't disprove the pink dancing little elephants that turn invisible when I open the fridge either.

Even if God does exist, you are still wrong. This is a topic about making educated guesses about the future, predictions. You can't make predictions based on theology, the bible or creationism. You use science to make predictions. The first has been invented to make people feel comfortable and to control them. The second has been created to explain things and to make predictions. So in that case you came to the right conclusing following the wrong arguments, which make you wrong. It doesn't matter if God exists or not. What matters is the proof. Is there a logical way to conclude God exists, there is none. Therefore, following science, one should assume God doesn't exist.

So to sum it up, the definition of God is of such a nature it can never be proven or disproven. The concept of God is outside that of science. That of human evolution is not. Creationism is theology, not science. I personally think logic favors atheism; the facts force one to assume God doesn't exist. This assumption may be incorrect, it is impossible to know, but the assumption is the only logical one.

take the organ of the eye.  it is so very complicated.  www.creationdesign.org/Impossibles.html   sometimes darwinism doesn't go into the little details, but considers the 'whole' good enough.  who cares if we share a certain percentage of DNA.  genetically, we are still different.  our brains uncode material in a much different way than animals.  how is this so?  God made us 'like Him.'  not like the animal.

Take away the lense of the eye. Does the eye still work? Yes, but not very good. Would a person with a lenseless eye have had an advantage over blind people? So it doesn't matter how complex the eye is at this time. It could still have evolved.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

For more inaccurate creationist claims: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB

so what if there are mutations.  are they always good?  or, do the mutated things die if more than 3 mutations of the dna are done at once.  take the fruitfly that was messed with.  it has two wings but the second set don't work.  all that proves to me, is that some scientist in a lab is messing with God's creation.

Most mutations don't do anything. Of the mutations that do something most are bad in most situations.
The fruitfly that was messed with proved that DNA instructions were segmented. By messing around with the DNA one could add another wing-segment. Sure, it's a scientist messsing around with life, if it be Gods creation or not. I could understand that you would view this as unethical. But I suspect this largely comes because the fly was abused for a bad cause; science.

About messing around with live; are you a vegetarian or do you only eat mercifully produced meat?

probably no more that a scientist could explain things to me and have me fully understand the intricacies of the magnetic pull of the earth.  although i have read that it must be fairly young because of the 'decay' that it shows.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

also, the population of the earth would be HUGE if we didn't start with two people about 7000 years ago.  even if every 89 years 1/3 of the world population dies off - we would not sustain as many people as would be living if the earth were MUCH older or we started with many more people.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

This is all creationist propaganda.

what is our destiny if we have evolved.  devolving again How could we get to be this good if it is 'natural selection' with no goal in mind (just nature selecting what it wants to survive).  survival is different than thriving.  can you imagine what life would be like with one eye, one arm etc.  one eye would help us see in a keener fashion.

Does it really matter in this discussion? We have not been given a destiny. This is so puzzeling. Why does this whole universe exist. It's huge, it's complex, why why? Why not just nothing? Actually new ideas about astronomy might indicate that we can see only a fraction of the total universe and that it may actually be millions times larger. And we can already see that the universe is 15 billion light years big.

And then there is this planet, with life on it, and one of those creatures is conscious of its consiousness. We may be the only observer to this whole huge creation. All kinds of strange questions that are just unansered and that I can accept as unanswered.

Please please. Not everything has to be logical.

Then it shouldn't be in this topic.

next time i am at barnes and noble, i will look at guns, germs, and steel.  my son might raise an eyebrow - but, who knows.

That book isn't about Darwinism or biology. It tries to explain why the western cacausian civilization is dominant over the rest of the world. I think this book has the view that this is because of enviromental conditions being favorable in europe, and not about culture and genes.

with satellite imaging, it's been possible to locate most biblical sites mentioned in the bible.  how could these places be real places - yet the scripture be untrue.

This is really puzzeling? So the bible is either completely true or completely wrong? Lets take a new famous book, The Da Vinci Code, which I haven't read myself actually. A lot of the things in the book are facts but the whole idea of the book is fiction. So if the book is fiction, does Paris actually not exist after all then? Leonardo Da Vinci was made up, fiction? Of course not. What kind of absurdity is this?

the biblical site most likely for the garden of eden is in iraq.  the four rivers mentioned (two of which are STILL extant today in iraq) had channels that could be seen under layers of sediment.

I have heard some thing that the Garden of Eden was actually a place inbetween heaven and earth. And both from the theological and mythological point of view, I find that idea more elegant. But it seems the idea is favored more in Judaism.

and, if natural selection was involved in language, why didn't we take the easy route and all have one language.

What!? Americans and english people already have different languages, while they seperated about 300 years ago. Cultural diversity is just something that happens natural. This has nothing to do with Darwinism.

If you look at language from a linguistic point of view, all languages are already one. Think about Chomsky's idea of universal grammer.

i once hiked back in the chugach mountains in anchorage - and found a crystal clear lake way high up in the mountains (it looked like run off from snow and possibly glacier water).  there were little minnows in it.  now how did little minnows get into a lake way up there, i have no idea.

You think God is actively 'walking around', carrying minnows to lakes?
I can't comment on this case because I don't know anything about those mountains, I didn't even know they are in Alaska. But must this be a miracle?

She believes it because it's been embedded in her mind since she was a child. To deny blatant facts and logic for the sake of a two thousand year old book is nothing more than brainwashing.

You are right, and this is what is so sad about religion. This is why Nietzsche despised religion. This also lays naked a dark part of being human; you can make them believe anything.

creationism gives hope for a future.  who wants to be like a piece of mold or bacteria.

Irrelevant! You must understand, I also would favor being a perfect creation of a divine power so powerful and wise it created the whole universe. But I don't want to believe in the most comfortable theory. But believing a theory doesn't make it the truth. I want the truth. For you this Feynman quote:


    "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

    I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

    - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
    from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

[prometheus]

because my post was getting too long, I had to cut out the cloning part:

by the way...some creationists are wonder how far evolutionists are going.  i mean - what about cloning.  is this something less to talk about?  i suppose that should be banned.

Why would evolutionist favor things like cloning and genetic enginering? I don't think people should mess around with nature, be it created or evolved. I do realise humans have animalistic primitive urges and simple flaws in their 'design'. These could potentially be fixed through genetic engineering. But it is a double edged sword, a lot of bad things could happen too.

And about cloning in particular. I don't see why we should want or do it. But do realise, we already have clones; identical twins. No one would argue that when one is born one should be killed because of the lack of individuality between the two. And they even grow up in the same enviroment; same parents, same social status, same culture, same friends, same school, etc. But of course this doesn't mean we should go out and clone people. I would say, just ban it for now.

cloning isn't good. Not every clone comes out fine. Some clones come out sickely disfigured and deformed.

This hasn't much to do with cloning itself. This is because the way we clone doesn't work very well. I won't get in the details. But there is a point here. If we are going to do this with humans, the experiment may fail. Nature already created a failed human every once in a while, why should we add to this number with some stupid experiment?

Another thing is that we could get biological machines. Machines that are constructed out of DNA and that really grow and live. This may sound strange, but our bodies are already machines of some kind. Designing things on a molecular level, which is only really effective when you use carbon-based molecules, is far more superior to what we do now. But this is very much SF.

[pianistimo]

i'm not sayint that i don't agree that animals and humans share a PORTION of their DNA, and even the embryos look similar (between fish and human) since they have gills.  but, the portion of the DNA that is unmatched makes them a different category completely.  Our 'gills' turn into ears, etc.

i never claimed in my statements to know everything about genetics, but i am not ill advised.  i have read both sides and contemplate things more from an ethical standpoint.  i realize that some of you do, too, and i commend you for this.  i don't believe humans are 'things.'  they are people from the moment of conception.  i believe a man and a woman should be necessary for reproduction - and believe that going beyond that is messing with God's creation.  i don't care what other people get mad about and tell me to think.  why do people get so mad about these things?  because they want to control how other people think.  do creationists get much press?  no.  do they even get as much page space in a science textbook?  no.  so you're talking to yourself.

the bioethics community, when deciding on how much further to take cloning, did a research (pro and con) on the subject.  there are many distinguished doctors that discussed the issue.  i tend to agree with dr. krauthammer (pg. 277 at bottom and rest of article) on the cloning issue - and he's helped me solidify my reasoning (since i'm no scientist).  www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/pcbe_cloning_report.pdf

as far as the minnows in the lakes...i didn't say that God carries them to these places - but he does his own form of embryonic stuff (frozen - thawed) possibly - but only with FISH.  i don't think he would want us freezing ourselves - to thaw out in a different period of history and not even know our parents.  or be implanted in a person who is not our biological mother.  it's a right, i believe, for people to know their family. 

[prometheus]

do creationists get much press?  no.  do they even get as much page space in a science textbook?  no.  so you're talking to yourself.

Do holocaust deniers get much press? Why would creationists deserve any press?

Actually, they get absurd amount of coverage in the media. Especially in the US. A lot of atheists actually think darwinism may be wrong and that this is an actual view held by scientists. This is because of christian fundamentalist propaganda. That's why people get angry. Those people want to brainwash other people.

And to put it in a scientific text book? Creationism is a theological myth, not a scientific theory. It doesn't have the properties of a scientific theory. It just outright fails.


Also, I see all this fuss about proving the theory of evolution. Theories aren't proven. They are disproven.

Let's take creationism and try and use it as a scientific theory. What would you expect to see? Lets not get into young earth stuff. We would expect a creature without redundancy in the design and a neater design in general, was God on drugs or is he insane? We would expect less genetic flaws. We would expect humans to have no animallistic traits. We would expect a bigger difference between humans and animals and between all different species. We would not expect evolution or even Darwinism. We wouldn't expect mutations. It would predict the lack of junk DNA. It would predict that all creatures were created at the same time, otherwise the ecosystems would get messed up. It would predict a lack of extintions. It would predict less genetic variation in the same species, all creatures of the same species would almost be clones of each other. It would predict a soul. It would predict that we would age a bit more merciful. It would predict childbirth would be less painful. It would predict an alternative for a spine for almost all land animals. It would predict a less fragile neck. It would predict two extra sets of ribs to protect the abdominal region. It would predict a knee that holds during sports. It would predict the eye retina to be constructed the other way around.

The list goes on. Does creationism actually make any predictions that are correct? Creationism as a scientific theory is refuted. It fails.

And, the scientific process hasn't been followed. Scientific theories should be build on observations, not on someones idea of a nice idea, an opinion, a myth or the bible.

And if the young earth myth would be an accurate theory, whole science would fall down as a house of cards and this computer wouldn't work. The fact that I can communicate with you proves science is right on those points and that the earth is really about 4.55 billion years old.

If the earth is really 6000 years old fields like geology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, physical anthropology, astronomy, physics and archaeology, would all be creating useful science based on false theories. How can all these false theories be so accurate and useful?

As for Darwinism. Darwin based his theory on the observations he made. Later, experiments proved the theory. The theory predicted genetics and mutations. Darwinism makes useful predictions in medicine and it helps fighting diseases caused by germs, virusses or paracites. It explains why bats have fingers, why whales are unusual, why we found extinct Hominids, why we have an appendix, why all life is so poorly designed. Let's face it. When we look around nature seems to have developed step by step. Evolution has been observed, and it matches the theory.

You can't teach biology properly without Darwinism. It wouldn't make sense.

[lisztisforkids]

i'm not sayint that i don't agree that animals and humans share a PORTION of their DNA,
 
do creationists get much press? no. do they even get as much page space in a science textbook? no.

Even between a banana and a huamn, Geneticly we are about 50% in common.

Get it through your head, CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE. There is no plausible reason they should be in scienece textbooks. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. If you want to teach Creationism, than you may as well teach me about the Hindu way of how Human Beings orginated.

Keep your religon out of my school and my goverment. I dont care what you do on your own or in private schools. And you still havent given me a explanation on Noah.

[prometheus]

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html

[pianistimo]

thank you both.  i'm not usually that expressive about my beliefs in person, and generally keep my thoughts to myself.  i don't go into the school and rant - or even take a textbook back and highlight what i don't believe in yellow marker.  i don't have that much of an inferiority complex - because i already taught my children when they were young.  now, they are being taught something else.  i hope they compare the two views adequately.

and, prometheus, did you see the list of nationalities that BELIEVE creationism.  it's huge!  thanks!  and, the flood theory is not just found in one culture - as the first site you mentioned said - but in many. 

we'll probably just agree to disagree - but at least we are reading each others information and discussing.  i have some other friends back in lancaster - and despite our differences in our thoughts we continue to e-mail and keep track of family and discuss what we are thinking.  i tell them i'm praying for them - because a lot of their children are in the military.  they might come and visit me here sometime to see pa.  it's kind of nice to keep friends even if you disagree with their views.

[prometheus]

and, prometheus, did you see the list of nationalities that BELIEVE creationism.  it's huge!  thanks!  and, the flood theory is not just found in one culture - as the first site you mentioned said - but in many.

This does not matter a bit.

[mycrabface]

Then people with blonde hair and blue eyes will also dissapear.

Are you a blonde with blue eyes?

[prometheus]

Accidentally, yes. Does it matter?

It's just that both blonde hair en blue eyes are caused by mutations recessive to dark hair and brown eyes. Once the human gene pool is properly mixed because of different ethnicities interbreeding it will no longer exist.

[yamagal]

She believes it because it's been embedded in her mind since she was a child. To deny blatant facts and logic for the sake of a two thousand year old book is nothing more than brainwashing. I believe in God, but not a man-made interpretation of God. God is infinite, shapeless... something that we humans cannot even begin to comprehend. God is everything. To deny science is to deny God. God, science, evolution all co-exist. Christians hold a very narrow point of view. They apply human-made limitations on God and constantly contradict themselves. Instead of studying God's infinite creation and using it to it's full potential (stem-cell research, etc.), they choose to put limits on something that is limitless. Thinking that the Earth is only 5,000 years old and fossils are Satan trying to trick us is really getting ridiculous. Quit taking the bible literally please. Open your eyes.

Young earth Christians believe as you say.  They are a very vocal subset of all Christians and they have largely succeeded in giving the impression that all Christians believe as they do.  That is not true.  There are many old earth Christians as well -- even conservative evangelical old earthers.  I am one, and I have no problem with the concept of evolution if that was in fact how God did it.  In fact, from what I have read, given the statistical improbability of macroevolution happening over the short timespan we see in the fossil record (several billion years), the only way (IMO) that it *could* have come about successfully is with God directing the process.

Interesting to me that so many Christians have an aversion to evolution, just as so many pro-natural selectionists have an aversion to any notion of a Creator.  As you point out, God, science and evolution can coexist just fine.

[rob47]

I also agree wit tha legendary memmingah

[prometheus]

There are many old earth creationists. There are ID-christians. There are totally evolution christians too. Accepting Christ hasn't got anything to do with how life as we know it now came into being. Many creationists aren't christians. But there aren't any atheist creationists, well apart from a few ET-nuts, probably.

Being a creationist comes forth from faith, not from observation of the world around you.

Yamagal, if you believe that, then you do not understand the evolution theory. There is no need for God in this process. You are believing Intelligent design, a pseudo-scientific form of creationism.

Marco-evolution is not a scientific term. It does not exist in science of in darwinism. It is something made up by creationists to explain why evolution doesn't explain humans while they can't deny the process doesn't exist because of empirical data.

If virusses can evolve and learn to 'digest' nylon, an artificial fiber, then there is no limit. There is no system that prevents evolution from breaking the 'species'-barrier, as some creationists claim. If enough small steps are taken, how does this prevent those small steps cummulating into large onces, which often seems to be called 'macro-evolution' by some.

I am not aware of the statistics you mention. Let's analyse the point in detail. You claim life on earth developed too fast to be explained by darwinism alone. This requires the knowledge of how much time would be required for the life forms of today to have evolved. I am not aware of such data, be it that it supports evolution or not. So this is just a unknown in the theory of evolution. This is perfectly normal in science. The lack of knowledge doesn't refute the theory. If the data would be obtained, through proper scientific method, and it would show too little time has elapsed to explain the level of complexity we see now, then it would be a first step towards refuting the theory of evolution. No one has been able to do this.

It is kind of strange that you add 'IMO' inside the argument. So this is just your uneducated opinion? Those always useless in science, no matter what they say.



Everyone in their right mind would have an aversion for evolution. But scientists are able to seperate personal opinion from science. Like I said before, if my personal preference would reverse history, if I would voice my preference for a divine creator and we would actually be created, then I would. But this is not the case. No matter how hard I wish I were a divine creation, the world still appears evolved to me and to science. If it worked, I could actually wish myself divine, I would wish away my appendix, fix all those errors in human design, etc, I would do it, obviously. Everyone would. But we don't live in a world like that, I accept nature as she is. My opinion is irrelevant. Like Feynmann said in the quote above.

[pianistimo]

i really have no idea how old the earth is and subscribe to neither, because i don't know.  on the one hand, you have God hovering over the water (which implies that the earth was flooded several times - and possibly accounts for another age or ages)  and also there's a verse in hebrews which i don't understand  *(heb. 1:2 - by whom He also made the 'worlds')  i don't understand why the plural is used.  did that mean ages of the world or referring to a new heaven and earth in the future?

anyway - because i don't know - i'll just state that.

there are so many intricacies to micro-biology that it is stunning.  you would think that as things got smaller they would be simpler.  they are technologically impossibly small.  and then, when you go the other direction (into space) you also see amazing design.  it has to be design, to me.  how else would we get constellations.  i mean, they could have been randomly sprinkled and make no patterns whatsoever.  and, all the beauty of the universe.  how could such beauty exist without a plan.

biblical david contemplated the sun, moon, and stars (our immediate galaxy).  each one should tell about how our universe began (as well as the earth).  so, on the one hand, we have some scientists telling us the sun is so many billions of years old and others saying it can't be.  i tend to believe that if the earth was older than 6000 years, we would have had a re-creation of the sun.  the bible directly states that he made the sun for day, and moon for night - and evening and morning were the fourth day (God illuminating the earth by His light for the first three).  this would be either the first day of the sun at an age of 6000 years now with this particular sun - or ... there were other suns?

there is speculation by scientists that our entire galaxy (and possibly more or all of the heavens that we see) was created very suddenly (big bang).  and, for creationists that it would be younger than previously thought by just looking at things if it were since God can create things to look old or young (as he made adam and eve adults).  here's an interesting view from a scientist who is also a christian: www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/faintsun.asp

because i'm not a scientist, i'm sticking with faith and just believe that God will prove His creation by His second coming.  every eye will see Him (according to His Word) and we will have his creation (as well as the Holy Spirit) to have learned as much about Him as we coiuld without seeing Him personally.  if we count the generations of the bible (plus or minus a few years) we can get a general counting of the years BC and AD.  i think the companion bible has some sort of age chart (have to look it up) but around 6000 would encompass then to now.  what is interesting, to me, is that the idea of a seven day week is still around.  that was intelligent design - and is still used today.  if 'one day is as a thousand' to God, then we are right on schedule for His return.  I'm not saying i look at my watch and say - any moment now...but, how much worse can this world get?  people freezing to death, dying in wars, famine, disease.  sure, it's happened before, but God has given us the amount of time he designed from the beginning to let us do things our way (the way of deciding good and evil for ourselves). 

the one thousand years of peace spoken of in revelations is about to signal the end of this earth age.  and, then a new heavens and new earth!  i know this is by faith - but i don't see where random science could come up with a calendar (not random -s ince the planets are quite regular in orbit) and keep a week this long. 

[yamagal]

Hi Prometheus,

Accepting Christ hasn't got anything to do with how life as we know it now came into being.

Agreed.

Being a creationist comes forth from faith, not from observation of the world around you.

Many creationists would argue that it takes faith to believe in evolution.

It is all in how you interpret the data. 

Yamagal, if you believe that, then you do not understand the evolution theory. There is no need for God in this process.

Ok, I don't understand the minutiae of evolutionary theory (never could get thru Origin of Species, though we have it somewhere around here).  But also I do not understand why, as conceptualized, the process must needs exclude God.

You are believing Intelligent design, a pseudo-scientific form of creationism.

Why is ID pseudo-scientific?  I have read that the scientific method itself has its roots in the Bible.  It has been argued that if it weren't for the Judeo-Christian worldview, we wouldn't have the scientific method.  Seems to me it's only been in the 19th and especially 20th centuries that folks have arisen who have insisted that a Judeo-Christian worldview be expunged from science, from scientific thinking. 

Marco-evolution is not a scientific term. It does not exist in science of in darwinism. It is something made up by creationists to explain why evolution doesn't explain humans while they can't deny the process doesn't exist because of empirical data.

That is an interesting claim, and I would like to know what you base it on.  See the following:

Macroevolution

If virusses can evolve and learn to 'digest' nylon, an artificial fiber, then there is no limit. There is no system that prevents evolution from breaking the 'species'-barrier, as some creationists claim. If enough small steps are taken, how does this prevent those small steps cummulating into large onces, which often seems to be called 'macro-evolution' by some.

That's fine, I have no problem with that.

I am not aware of the statistics you mention. Let's analyse the point in detail. You claim life on earth developed too fast to be explained by darwinism alone. This requires the knowledge of how much time would be required for the life forms of today to have evolved. I am not aware of such data, be it that it supports evolution or not. So this is just a unknown in the theory of evolution. This is perfectly normal in science. The lack of knowledge doesn't refute the theory. If the data would be obtained, through proper scientific method, and it would show too little time has elapsed to explain the level of complexity we see now, then it would be a first step towards refuting the theory of evolution. No one has been able to do this.

The probability arguments are rife in young earth and old earth literature.  They sound convinicing to nonscientists like me.  However in doing a web search, I just came across this:

Creationism versus Scientific Evolution Theory: Probability

and will read it for starters.

It is kind of strange that you add 'IMO' inside the argument. So this is just your uneducated opinion? Those always useless in science, no matter what they say.

It is my opinion as a widely-read layperson who isn't on top of the details of all she reads (blame it on being late postpartum - my memory is lousy lately).  I will recommend a book to you, however.  I read it soon after baby was born, when my mind was still working well (good attention/memory) and baby took lots of naps so I could read a lot.  It is The Dawn of Human Culture by Richard G. Klein, and it is really good.  It's secular, if that matters to you.  A terrific book overall, very interesting.

I really appreciate the honesty here:

Everyone in their right mind would have an aversion for evolution. But scientists are able to seperate personal opinion from science. Like I said before, if my personal preference would reverse history, if I would voice my preference for a divine creator and we would actually be created, then I would. But this is not the case. No matter how hard I wish I were a divine creation, the world still appears evolved to me and to science. If it worked, I could actually wish myself divine, I would wish away my appendix, fix all those errors in human design, etc, I would do it, obviously. Everyone would. But we don't live in a world like that, I accept nature as she is. My opinion is irrelevant. Like Feynmann said in the quote above.

Nice talking with you.  I appreciate that you state your positions and assertions without being mean-spirited.  Wish more evolutionists (and creationists!) would follow your example.  Not referring to anyone here, of course.  I'm more thinking of those who speak or write to the public at large, especially those who make their living by contending for their position and arguing against the opposing view.

[pianistimo]

on first take it would seem that accepting Christ wouldn't have anything to do with how life as we know it came into being.  but, if He is supreme and ruler of all - His Word would tell us how life began.  and, since he controls life and death and ressurrection - that is beyond what scientists can see.  so, maybe creation has a spiritual element?  (He breathed life into man, and man became a living soul)

[prometheus]

First of, it is impossible to verify God wrote the bible. Actually, there are strong theological an historical arguments against it, which I will not go in to.

As far as we can tell life and death doesn't go beyond science. Actually, if you think about it, what would elude scientific method? Think about it.

The constellations, you mentioned you had a astronomy friend, maybe you should ask her/him to explain that constellations don't actually exist and that the patterns we see is just us drawing lines connecting totally random stars. Actually, constellations don't even look like the animals or creatures they are named after.

I really tried to make sense out of the other things you said, but I can't.

Yamagal, Ill comment on your post a bit later.