THE STORY OF CREATION or EVOLUTION? Options

[mac_bolan00]

^ Actually, they were just laughing at the "an egg" remark. Nothing to do with your post.

by golly you're right! i never would have thought of that! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[severus snape]

i don't think you're supposed to take the story of creation literally. the truth in the story lies in the message.

[mac_bolan00]

--- that man was created, literally, by God. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[rainman]

Link to "Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

[mac_bolan00]

i must say ateneans have, on the whole, earned my respect. just don't anyone slide to the usual muddle of discussing abiogenesis when the topic is evolution.

[rainman]

Originally posted by raggster:

incidentally, i'd love to hear how scientists can simulate the evolution of a monkey into a human being.   (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

perhaps you were still unborn when the scientific documentary series, Cosmos by Carl Sagan came about in the latter 70s or early 80s. In one of the episodes of the 13 part series, Carl Sagan gave a simulation of how the simplest element in the universe (hydrogen, if I correctly recall) and stars such as the sun led to the chain of events that ended with the formation of the earth and how it was predominantly inhabited by the human species. according to Sagan in his Cosmos presnetation, the simplest and earliest forms of life, as derived from the abundance of this element and the sun, began from beneath the sea and gradually developed into life as we know it. Sagan further contends that there is so much abundance of this element and sun-like stars all over the known and unknown universe that there is a great probability of life elsewhere, and such life is waiting and seeking to be discovered.

the implication of this explanation by Sagan of the origins of not only the universe, but life itself on earth and elsewhere has a huge impact on the two sides of the story on where the heck are we, and did we come from. May I suggest to those interested to try and get a hold of a copy of the Cosmos series.

For me, it is an interesting perspective of the discussion of our origins that will not only be informative, but maybe alter or reinforce what you like to believe.

"... 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

[mac_bolan00]

Originally posted by raggster:

incidentally, i'd love to hear how scientists can simulate the evolution of a monkey into a human being.   (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

"... 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

two things: 1) even the pope now agrees with evolution, 2) if valid, the evolution theory neither supports nor refutes god's existence.

This post has been edited by mac_bolan00: Jun 15 2009, 08:26 AM

[rainman]

^^^
But there still are some organizations that make it their mission to contradict evolution like the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...3668_id26m.html

BTW, as on off-topic, in the same way that evolution theory is used to raise doubt of the existence of God, the Big Bang theory and the moment before its origin (singularity) is also being used.

[mac_bolan00]

^^^
But there still are some organizations that make it their mission to contradict evolution like the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...3668_id26m.html

BTW, as on off-topic, in the same way that evolution theory is used to raise doubt of the existence of God, the Big Bang theory and the moment before its origin (singularity) is also being used.

there's nothing wrong with trying to contradict a theory as long as the argument is reasonable. when the primary aim is no more than fanatical support for one's existing belief, it all crap and that's pretty obvious at the start. "they make it their mission.." a bunch of quacks right there.

evolution debunks long-standing beliefs on how species came to be. every element that's requisite for evolution, for that matter every mathematical and physical law that we observe today, came when the universe came into existence. so whether or not god caused the big bang (BB being the most plausible theory for the creation of the universe,) evolution of intelligence was there, waiting.

as an atheist who's not closed to the possibility there is(was) a creator, i'm sticking to the russell counter-argument which is the attack on the first cause argument. everything else (teleological, ontological, pragmatic, moral, etc.) i see as crap and a tragic waste of both tuition and study time.