Peace to you, Aguest, but be warned that i am suffering from a bad cocktail of moms cooking, wine and no girlfriend that have put me in a strange mood :-).
Duly noted (and sorry?), dear Bohm, and again, peace to you!
With respect to item 1: I understand you agree with me you was not describing evolution, and actually critisizing a non-evolutionary idea. If your underlying point was that a bull and a lion has a common ancestor, and that it takes a leap of faith to believe that, i will completely agree with you -- we got to examine the evidence and see if they support such a claim.
I was not describing evolution, per se, no, but I have to respectfully disagree that the idea I criticized was non-evolutionary. I realize that there are different understandings of what “evolution” is… and that some might wish to say, “Oh, I didn’t mean that” when speaking of “evolution”… but perhaps “something else.” I was generalizing… and being a bit absurd… but I was describing the very evolutionary idea that says “ The similarities between all present day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.” 1 Meaning, the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process, which Darwin described in his book On the Origin of Species. 2
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life
2 http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1
Item 2: IMHO, that [that kinds evolve right now] is speculation. No its not, its observed in laboratories and in the field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.
Actually, your article kind of proves what my position: 12 nearly identical populations of the same bacteria were studied. 50,000 generations were cultivated, and all adapted to changes in their environment, some more than others. I can’t see where, however, such adaptations changed them… from e.coli bacteria to something else. They simply became stronger, adaptive strains of e.coli. Now, since e.coli is a SPECIES, I wouldn’t have been surprised if, say, two of the 12 had “mated” (but since they were asexual that is highly unlikely)… and resulted in yet another species. Or, say, 1 or 2 of the 12 somehow got in with… or caught a virus from, say, one of the other escherichia species and evolved an entirely new species from that.
But there is nothing to suggest that any one of the 12 populations would have, at some point, ANY point, evolved into, say, s. enterica… which is another bacteria, yes, even of the same “kind” (class/order/family)… but of a different GENUS (salmonella… vs. the escherichia genus of which e.coli is a species).
Since “sapiens” is the only species in the genus “homo” I can see nothing in the experiment to show that we evolved from and/or are evolving to another species, genus, or otherwise. Now, I realize that there are some whose position is that the other “homo” species all died out/are extinct. Sorry, but I cannot buy that. I get the whole “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” ideology. But given two “facts” (one, that we haven’t seemed to evolve “since”… and there is absolutely no evidence that we are, physically… and two, of the 125 or so “discoveries”… all but two were “discovered” after Mr. Darwin published his book. Only 11 were “discovered” over 100 years ago… and 80% were “discovered” in the last 50 years.
Not that I have a problem with progress and modern discoveries, not at all. Like you, with regard to my faith, I just haven’t seen any evidence to support the theory (and it is a theory) that “ all present day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.” I DO believe that all present day organisms have a common ancestor. But I don’t believe we “evolved” from it. Rather, I believe that it is a him… that ALL life and thus living organisms got their origin from him… not BY him… but FROM him, his essence… and thus all life DOES share certain commonalities.
But I don’t agree that we “evolved” from it (him)… but that all life contains a “piece” of him, which is why such commonalities exist. Since he IS the Life… and was the Source used to bring life into existence… it is absolutely understandable that all living things share certain DNA commonalities.
I believe the same initial building block (which could be the most basic part of DNA ) that was used to create, say, the Pan (chimpanzee) genus… was also used, with slight variation, to create, the Homo (man) genus. And, with slightly greater variation, the Gorilla genus. And with more variation, the Pongo genus. And with even more variation, the gibbon genera. I believe that same initial ingredient, component, block, whathaveyou… was used to create ALL life, whether it be plant, animal, bacteria, single-celled… whatever.
I believe there was (is) one… who was a kind of “mother dough” (you might have to read up on sourdough to understand)… and that all life is just a variation on that Dough’s original recipe. For instance, some batches have raisins, some have chocolate chips, some have nuts… some have more, some have less… but they all lead back to that mother dough. Christ. The One through whom all creation came into existence… the One used BY God TO create the physical universe. Not technically… but literally.
As to what happens over millions of year, well, there are several lines of evidence that provide testimony and we can always discuss that.
I would be happy to discuss that, because that’s primarily where my doubts come in… that we believe we know what occurred over millions of years. Thousands of years, even tens of thousands don’t cause me a problem. Millions? Sorry, but there’s just too many possibilities/variables. And no, I don’t believe in a literal 24-hour creative day.
But that evolution is ongoing is an undeniable fact (you might choose to call it variation within a kind, but that you have another name for it hardly prevent it from happening).
You misunderstand me: I absolutely believe in evolution… and that it IS ongoing... within the species,excluding homo sapien. As I have stated on many an occasion. It is why we have so many species of plants, animals, bacteria, etc. But I don’t believe in evolution of homo sapien OR all from one common ancestor. I believe in creation from one such common ancestor.
Also, we can’t just dismiss some theory because there are no eye-witnesses to it; if we did that we had to throw away most of cosmology and plate tectonics.
Yet, you wish to do that with regard to what I believe… for the very reason that you don’t believe there are eye-witnesses… when in MY case, there are… and many recorded what they saw. How IS that, exactly?
If God is telling you personally that evolution did not happen i cannot really argue with that –
Not God. Christ. And yes, there is a difference. A BIG difference. Because they are not one and the same, contrary to what many, particularly many “christians”, believe.
but i am sure you understand that if I told you that Zeus had told me that evolution DID occur you would not see that as a particular convincing argument.
That you simply told me, no. If, however, you told me that he could tell me, as well… and I bothered to check it out and he did… OR, if you told me that what he told you is recorded… well, I couldn’t totally and absolutely dismiss you, either. I could only tell you WHY I don’t believe you… and either offer my reasons/proof… or ask you to clarify or provide more as to YOUR reasoning/proof.
We can only discuss the physical facts in a meaningful way, and if one or both of us has a personal revelation from God we should properly leave that out of the conversation.
Contrary to what many believe… I not only have no problem discussing purely the physical facts, but I actually took an active interest and studied them, perhaps to a lesser degree than some, but I did bother. I mean, how can I know what you believe if I don’t even bother to investigate it even a little? Now, you and some others might say you’ve already "investigated" what I believe. But because you most probably base that on what the WTBTS or some other religion has taught… I would have to vehemently disagree and say that you really haven’t investigated what I am sharing with you.
Item 3: If you wrote a scientist and told him that you had not examined any physical evidence, or read any books on the subject, but you nevertheless had an idea that proved his life work wrong, yah, he would properly be quite skeptical and ask you to read a basic book on anthropology before you spoke. But would you really be acting in line with the bible (or plain common sence) in doing so?
First, I would never do that. IF I wrote to a scientist, I would have read up on him and what he believed, some agreeing and some opposing positions, and then prepared a proper paper/essay with an adequately outline argument as to why I disagree. C’mon, dear one… give me SOME credit…
Im not sure i understand the zoo-idea, could you perhaps describe how it affect humanoid fossils found in africa and china?
I only include the zoo because of your scenario. Chimps left in the wild... or in a zoo but pretty much left alone (i.e., not fooled around with).
The problem is not that there is 20-odd fossils that may have been very ill or deformed – it’s that ALL which are "old" show the same type of deformities.
In the cases where more than one were found, yes. But again, that doesn’t say to ME that these weren’t community anonmalies, contrivances (i.e., because some HAVE been faked), or were the product of evolution. Again, of the 125-odd “discoveries” made thus far, only TWO occurred before Mr. Darwin’s “theory.” Both of THOSE are considered “Neanderthals.” He comes up with a theory… although there were many, MANY scientists who didn’t give a care about religion before him, brilliant men… and women… and then all of a sudden all of these discoveries are made. MOST based on very small fragments. Forgive me for being as skeptical about the “science” as you are about my faith.
You suggest there may have been a wide-spread disease like AIDS which has caused this, but its pretty strange this disease altered the morphology of the skeletons to such an extend, and that NO normal humans are found which date to that age.
I think the “date to that age” also poses a problem for me – there are two sides to that coin, as well. Either way, I don’t know that I believe that NO normal humans are/were found that date to that age, dear one. NOR do I believe that, given the environmental conditions at the time, say, perhaps a tainted water source, who knows... such an anomaly could NOT have occurred with several, even hundreds, of people. Even cultural anomalies. For example, there are tribes where the women were believed to be born with extra-ordinarily long necks. Turns out, the heavy rings they place around their necks push the shoulders down, forming a deformity. Elsewhere, people who share the exact same DNA markers with those who are of normal height and bone growth are severely stunted due to malnutrtion.
Am I suspicious of science? I guess you could say that, although the better statement is that I am suspicious of man. Why? Because h e has a tendency to push, even fabricate, whatever it is he believes… even if he has to make up “proof” to support it. Like bogus jawbones. And things like the “Shroud of Turin” which is "supposed" to hold the image of Christ (sheesh!).
At any rate one can imagine many fanciful explanations -- the simplest explanation is that the hundreds of fossils actually represent what lived in those days.
Or… that they are only a faction of what lived in those days… and not necessarily related to modern man at all… that [modern] man is just what he has always been… and these others, if not man were something else, but not descendants of homo sapien at all, ever.
I don’t have a problem that we disagree, dear one. It is curious to me, however, that when it boils down it is you who accuse me of what you are doing: taking issue without knowing the facts. I do attempt to learn the facts – I am not sure those like you do. Again, yes, I know… most of you “tried” religion. But that is nothing like what I am speaking about, sharing. Not even close. It is like me saying I took a class on evolution taught by someone I now know doesn’t have a clue, but continue to say I “understand” evolution, now. See?
But, no worries, dear Bohm: I don’t have a problem with ALL of evolution, just some of it, primarily as a result of the faked stuff (and there has been faked stuff). In the same vein, I just wish folks didn’t allow fake christs to cause them to have a problem with ALL faith… but perhaps just some of it (i.e., the faked, I don’t REALLY know what I’m talking about but since YOU don’t know that, here, take this… kind).
Again, peace to you, and thank you for graciously allowing the discussion. We don’t have to end here, of course, but in case we do… thank you! I realize our dialogue is long, but that's only because we're playing it out, here. Were to have a verbal discussion, I would wager even more time would be spent.
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA