You all may have evolved from monkey's or apes but don't include me into
your theories.

ah???????
what kind of question is that spider?
Ofcourse evolution is reality, the Holy thing about evolution is that
God was forming us (human beings) little by litle through centuries
until we got our actual status of conciousness,

:)

You guys fell hook line and sinker! So much correction and yet nobody
criticizes the correctors, only the person who made the erroneous
statement.

Google "Matthew 7:1-6" and you will find page after page that echos my
commentary. Christians agree that the commentary I offered was
accurate. I got attacked for correcting someone who didn't understand
Matthew 7:1-6 in context, so where are the criticisms for the people who
feel that they can correct me on the theory of evolution?

And by the way you guys, learn a little about Evolution before you try
to defend it. The theory of evolution states that humans have a common
ancestor with apes, not that we are related to monkeys at all.
Interesting that so many people support a theory that they don't even
understand.

I saw no one 'correcting' anyone. I did see several people placing
their humble opinions into the community thread.

hey AB dude u don't go to church without a shirt.
this is like jsh church.
what the hell are u doing?

sorry for diverting
my bad

I got a case of misplaced vanity and posted in the 'Sexy picture..'
thread.

The small print said I had to leave this picture up till saturday.

I'm gettin tired of lookin at it myself. I can just imagine how other
people feel.

I think we should all attend church nekkid. If we could truly do that
without shame it would negate the Original Sin nicely.

I'm going to ask my priest if we can go to sunday mass naked

Abra, there is not enough room here to try and explain the "whys" of my
belifes and proof of God. He has been proven to me more than once. That
is all I have to say on the matter. It was enough proof that many
people, family and friends and some medical professions were agasp. It
has changed many of our lives for the better. If it works for me and
helps me, then why on earth would someone want to take that away from
me?
It was actually after the miracles, that I began to get involved with
the Bible. And learn about what it has to say. In my life, it shows
itself true.

Kat

Spider, I don't know where you're getting your information from, but
having a common ancestor is one of the things that DEFINES being
related. See Sagan, "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," p. 276.

LexFonteyne Wrote:

Spider, I don't know where you're getting your information from, but
having a common ancestor is one of the things that DEFINES being
related. See Sagan, "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," p. 276.

=========================================================================================

SpiderCMB replied:

The theory of evolution does not suggest that humans evolved from
monkeys. I guess my statement "not that we are related to monkeys at
all" was a bit stronger than I intended. How's this: evolution suggests
that humans and apes are distantly related and that monkeys are an even
more distant relative.

Spider, yeah, that fits in better with the general tone of the books
I've been reading the last x number of years. Still a lot of
speculation and disagreement and it would be nice to have something a
little more definitive, anyway.

It will be interesting to see what they finally decide about
sahelanthropus tchadensis (if they ever do)....!

Kat wrote:
“He has been proven to me more than once”

I have absolutely no doubt that you have had divine experiences.

But why do you relate those with the Christian religion?

Is it because you simply don’t know of any other religion to turn to?

I’ve been meaning to post my life’s story in the thread about our
spiritual journeys. Unfortunately my journey was so long it would take
me a half a dozen posts just to tell it in it’s shortest possible form.

But just to explain something, I actually started our with Christianity,
realized it was wrong, and then became an atheist for a while which I
never genuinely believed. I always knew that god exists, but since I
also know that Christianity was incorrect, I was stuck. I knew god
exists, but I didn’t have a religion, and I was trying to fit god in
with ‘atheism’ which was never going to work

Fortunately I finally did find other religions that described the god
that I actually experience. But even then I didn’t just dive into them
wholeheartedly. I had been fooled by Christianity I wasn’t about to be
fooled by any other religion. So I was patient and began to realize
that there were several religions that described a similar picture of
the god I actually knew first hand. I finally, realized that god
doesn’t even care about religion. So why should I? And that’s when I
realized that just knowing god directly is all that’s really
necessarily. Why get all tangled up with a church and dogma. That’s
not where god is. God is in your spirit, not in a bunch of
commandments.

I don’t deny god Kat, I deny religion. To me they are two entirely
separate things.

As I have said sooo many times my dear friend. I have no religion. If by
religion you mean that I have similar beliefs as others according to
God, then yes, I guess I am religious. But, I claim no particular
religion, such as a church or related entity.
Religions scare me. Too much business and rules that don't apply to
spirit. More like a big club with bosses. If God afforded us the realm
of religion, would He have made it so some would be kicked out or left
out simply because of mistakes? I think not. Does that help you know me
a little better than you already did?
Kat

Ely & Spider - I'll ask you both.

What do you think of other species of huminids? In other words, for Ely
- I read that there was sufficient likeness between at least two
huminids (one being modern man) to have allowed interbreeding. Would
this, could this have added to or changed humans as we know us today, in
any way?

Spider, it seems that science has discovered other huminid species.
Would they have had souls?
Also, if we had interbred with any other huminid species, would we
loose our soul? Would we be different than the way God originally made
us? Why would other species die out, when ours continued? Chosen?

Redykeulous wrote:

Ely & Spider - I'll ask you both.

What do you think of other species of huminids? In other words, for Ely
- I read that there was sufficient likeness between at least two
huminids (one being modern man) to have allowed interbreeding. Would
this, could this have added to or changed humans as we know us today, in
any way?

Spider, it seems that science has discovered other huminid species.
Would they have had souls? Also, if we had interbred with any other
huminid species, would we loose our soul? Would we be different than the
way God originally made us? Why would other species die out, when ours
continued? Chosen?

=========================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

You probably haven't read the whole thread, I created this thread to
draw out some people who criticized me for correcting someone else about
their personal (and incorrect) interpretation of scripture.

Also, I will debate evolution with you, but you must include links and
quotes when you make assertions. When you say "to have allowed
interbreeding", I would like to see a source or I won't consider it a
valid argument. Science is based on facts and I personally like to
review them myself, that way it keeps both you and me honest.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html (a non-Christian
website)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although in its infancy, such genetic studies support the view that
Neanderthals did not interbreed with Homo sapiens who migrated into
Europe. It is, therefore, highly likely that modern humans do not carry
Neanderthal genes in their DNA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Please note that Neanderthals are the most similar to humans of all
hominid species.

Soul is the translation of the Hebrew word "nephesh", which means
breath. Most or perhaps all animals have a soul, so any hominids would
have had a soul. The soul is the thinking and feeling part of any
living being. What makes humans different is that we have a spirit,
which is the image of God (in which mankind was made) that is mentioned
in Genesis 1:26-27.

Redykeulous:

There is no hominid on Earth right now that is sufficiently close to
humans such as to allow interbreeding. To believe this was true in the
distant past requires a belief in evolutionary principles which I
disagree with. For me, this is not an issue. I don't think the various
hominid species evolved from one ancestral hominid. If, however, I am
wrong about it, then you could in fact be right.

In fact, one of the most prominent and widely accepted accounts of the
variety of human races ties in with this subject. In evolutionary
thinking, it is believed that between 7 and 9 million years ago there
was a large population of primates living in central Africa (like Chad,
Congo, etc). For some unknown reason, there appears to have been a
geographical rift in this population and a large subgroup was forced to
move north toward the desert area near Morocco, etc. The other group was
deflected east towards the grasslands (Somalia and south). The Moroccan
group developed into Middle Eastern humans, while the Somalian group
developed into other more advanced primates (chimps, etc). Thus, at some
point in those 7 million years, cross breeding could have occured
between the two segregated populations.

However, I want to note once again that I don't accept accounts like
these as valid. You cannot use genetics to determine that kind of
description about the past. If you could, the margin of error on a 7
million year old calculation would be so hilariously high that no one in
their right mind would trust it anyway. The people who came up with that
description are using very subjective methods of science not based on
hard observation or computation.



Abracadabra:

Perhaps the most compelling and obvious way in which biochemistry
conflicts with evolutionary principles is this:

“Cells would have no reason to develop regulatory mechanisms before the
appearance of a new catalyst… but the appearance of an unregulated new
catalyst would be like a genetic disease to the organism.”
-Michael Behe, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Darwin’s Black Box p. 159

In genetics, any random point mutation (a mutation ocurring at a base
pair, which changes a C to a G for example) cannot possibly be
beneficial unless all necessary regulatory processes develop and evolve
at exactly the same time as the point mutation itself.

In primitive cells, the process by which initiation factors use the
Shine-Delgarno box at the front of a strand of DNA in order to recognize
how it starts, for example, would be extremely deadly to the cell if it
were not for the immense and ridiculously complex regulation of this
initiation factor that takes place. Just within primitive cells,
Archeans, which do not have highly complex intertwined systems level
bioprocesses... even there, if it were not for the literally thousands
of necessary enzymes all reacting at exactly the right time, in exactly
the right sequence, and with exactly the right amount of chemical, then
the initiation of the reading of a strand of DNA could not take place
without killing the cell. This does not even get into the processes of
translation and formation of the protein coded by the DNA. I'm only
talking about the first 10 nanoseconds of the process. In just that
short bit of time, literally thousands of separate specific chemical
reactions take place in the most fragile of fashions to produce exactly
what is needed for the ribosome to find the exact start codon. If any
one of these pieces did not function properly, then no start codons will
be found and the cell will die.

How then could any one piece of this 1000 piece puzzle have evolved
since the entire puzzle is simultaneously required for the cell's
survival? Just as Behe points out in the quote above, to develop new
cellular abilities, but not the 1000s of enzymes needed to regulate
their action, is much more live posion than evolution. New cellular
developments are genetic diseases if they are not regulated. So the only
alternative is to believe every single piece of the 1000 piece puzzle
evolved at exactly the same time. Clearly that is ridiculous. That's
like winning the lottery every single day for 10000000 years in a row.

If you want to believe in that (obviously unfounded) claim (that all
developments occur simultaneously with all of their regulatory
processes) then you are welcome to it. But biochemistry and mathematics
preclude that from being a serious option.

More generally, at every level of life we see this amazing intertwining
property. Think about human systems. Without a fully functional
circulatory system, you could not have an immune system. But without a
fully functioning immune system, you can't possibly stay alive long
enough to develop a circulatory system. Not to mention a nervous system,
etc. Thus, it would be impossible to pinpoint or explain how such
systems could possibly have separately evolved. Which appeared first? If
you say they were both always there, that is the same as saying that
humans have always existed, etc. Clearly the circulatory system had to
have an origin, because some animals do not have circulatory systems.
But without immune systems, you can't describe the origin of the
circulatory system, and vice versa.

This type of complexity is called irreducible. That has been a buzzword
in this debate for about 10 years or so, and I feel that no evolutionist
(like Dawkins, Gould, etc) has ever offered a halfway decent argument
against irreducible complexity.

What's even more amazing is that when you step back and look at
ecological systems, you see the same irreducible complexity. The way
that plant life interacts with animal life, how ants depend on other
bugs but some birds depend on ants, etc. To take away one species is to
completely disorient all other species in the ecosystem. It's the same
thing that goes on inside your body, even inside every cell. It is an
amazingly irreducible complexity that severely weakens the evolutionary
argument.

I must admit I am really no expert on these topics though. My main area
of study is mathematics. In particular I like to study information
theory, coding theory, and topics in applied mathematics and physics.
The coding theory and information theory is a whole new area in which
this idea of information entropy is being used to characterize naturally
occuring codes. It very clearly exposes the flaw in evolution because,
as I was saying earlier, you cannot derive code from non-code. The very
essence of intelligence is that it posses code with which it can
recognize and create code itself. If there were ever a time when no such
intelligence existed, then it would not exist now.

Elyspears wrote:
“How then could any one piece of this 1000 piece puzzle have evolved
since the entire puzzle is simultaneously required for the cell's
survival?”

This kind of statement right here displays an incorrect view that many
people have of evolution. Even many educated scientists seem to have
this misguided view.

The statement above clearly comes from the point of view that the cell
was somehow that ‘goal’ of evolution. In other words, it’s like
asking, “How could evolution have possibly known that a cell was going
to need certain regulating process before the cell even existed in the
first place?”

But that kind of question is backward thinking. That assumes the final
product was somehow the goal and that evolution would have had to know
that the final product was going to need ahead of time. But that’s not
how evolution works.

Consider the following example.

Certain moths have evolved patterns on their wings that look like a
face. It appears that the ‘purpose’ of this trait is to make the whole
moth merely appear to be just the face of a larger animal. Thus when a
predator that normally eats moths sees this moth it doesn’t see a ‘moth’
instead it sees the face of a much larger animal and so it avoids it
rather than eating it.

So now the question comes. How could evolution have possibly known
ahead of time to evolve the patterns on wings of a moth to look like
face. But you see, that’s simply the wrong question to ask. What
actually happened was that as the moths evolved the ones that look like
‘moths’ got eaten, and the one’s that looked like faces didn’t. So the
one’s that looked like faces survived.

It’s the same way with cells. Cells that evolved without regulatory
processes died out and didn’t make it. The ones that did continued to
evolve to become even more complex. Today, we only see the survivors of
the evolutionary process. We don’t see the failures because they all
failed. So the idea that the entire ‘puzzle’ would have had to have
evolved first before the cells could survive is simply nonsense. I
don’t care if the people who are suggesting this have Ph.D. and are
writing a lot of books or whatever. If they are arguing that things
couldn’t have evolved because they would have had to have been complete
before they can work they are totally misunderstanding the very basis of
evolution.

It just shows that they have never let go of the notion that Humans were
the ultimate goal of the universe. Humans were NOT the goal of
evolution. Evolution had no goals.

~~~~~~

Elyspears wrote:
I must admit I am really no expert on these topics though. My main area
of study is mathematics. In particular I like to study information
theory, coding theory, and topics in applied mathematics and physics.
The coding theory and information theory is a whole new area in which
this idea of information entropy is being used to characterize naturally
occuring codes. It very clearly exposes the flaw in evolution because,
as I was saying earlier, you cannot derive code from non-code. The very
essence of intelligence is that it posses code with which it can
recognize and create code itself. If there were ever a time when no such
intelligence existed, then it would not exist now.

~~~~~~

You keep giving the same argument over and over again. That randomness
could not produce code.

I won’t even argue with that because it’s an unnecessary. Evolution is
not entirely a random process by far.

Evolution is drive by two compete separate non-random processes.

One of them is the process of natural selection which I had illustrated
above with the moths that appear to look like faces. That process is
certainly not random. A random process would be that all moths are
eaten randomly regardless what they look like. But that’s not the case
because how they look plays a role in whether or not they get eaten.
So there survival to the next stage is not entirely random.

The other end of evolution is drive by chemistry which is also not a
random process.

Imagine taking two little bars of metal. Color the ends of them to you
can tell the ends apart. Say you paint each bar red at one end and blue
at the other. Now randomly toss them in a bowl so that they will always
slide to the bottom of the bowl and meet.

What will happen? Well, it’s a random process so if you keep track of
things you’ll find that 50% of the time they line up so that both of the
bars have their colored end matching, and 50% of the time they will line
up so that their color ends are facing opposite directions.

Ok, that’s a purely random process. You can’t get evolution from that.

However, now take two magnetic bars and paint their end and toss those
bars randomly into the bowl. What will happen? Well, they will line
up 100% of the time totally blowing away idea of randomness. Why did
that happen? Because the process wasn’t really random. The magnetic
properties of the magnets cause the magnets to line up every time.

Well evolution works in a similar way. Atoms are tiny magnets. They
combine chemically in certain ways and not others. There’s nothing
random about it.

Think of a pair of dice.

You toss the dice you get a random number. The process is entirely
random, but not really.

Why isn’t it really random? Because you can never roll less than a 2 or
more than a 12, or can you roll anything other than WHOLE numbers
between 2 and 12.

So if you look at the BIG PICTURE, and list all of the possibilities, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Then you say, WOW! There some ORDER
here! How can this order come from complete randomness?

You never see a 1 come up or a 13, or a 3-1/2, because those numbers
simply can’t come up. That already ‘encoded’ in the dice.

Well, it’s the same way with evolution. DNA is encoded in the atoms.
In fact the carbon atom holds the bulk of the ‘blueprint’ for all of
life. It’s the carbon atom that fundamentally gives right to all of
this chemistry. Not to imply that the other atoms aren’t necessary,
but the carbon atom is the key because of myriad of differnet types of
bonds that it can form.

If you are genuinely interested in mathematics and coding theory you are
wasting your time trying to prove that life couldn’t possibly have
evolved from randomness. Instead you would be much better off putting
all of your efforts into mathematically demonstrating why the carbon
atom (and the cosmic soup of atoms in their proportions) necessarily
MUST evolve into DNA, just like dice necessarily MUST produce only 2, or
12, or any whole number in-between.

If you are serious about mathematics and coding theory, and that’s where
you desire lies, then you just might be the person to formally prove
this. If you formally prove this mathematically you will probably
receive a novel prize in both Physics and Mathematics. I have no doubts
at all that it *can* be proven. I’m absolutely certain that it is true.
It’s just waiting for someone to come along and prove it, and if you
love coding theory then you are in a perfect posting to be the person to
do it.

You will never succeed in disproving evolution by claiming that
randomness cannot produce code, because evolution is NOT an entirely
random process. You initial premise is simply invalid to begin with. So
it won’t matter if they rest of your logical argument is perfectly
correct, it will still be totally meaningless because your are starting
with an incorrect premise.

Elyspears wrote:
“If there were ever a time when no such intelligence existed, then it
would not exist now.”

God created the atoms.

I am a happy idiot...leave me with my rocks and monkeys...I am not
bothering anyone..

Daaauuummmm, talk about feeling small...These two guys are giving me a
dumb complex.

Kat