Yes, I am a Christian, stubby, and am not worried about it. I feel thaat we are called to stewardship, and I do my part, but I also believe in a sovereign God to worry about things bigger than me.

But being Christian does not negate observable phenomena in nature. Nature has always survived.



I don't believe they are unfounded judgments, stubby. On a regular basis, I hear scientists pronounce things as fact that cannot be proven, and I can't help but think how they are repeating the exact same error of EVERY generation of scientists that preceded them.



No, you said "Freedoms", stubby. Whether or not that was your intent, that IS what you said. "Freedom" is synonymous with liberty.



point.



Actually, I have a point I'd like to argue on this front. When we speak of "the theory of evolution", we are, in fact, lumping a large number of theories into a siungle container and thus doing disservice to some quite credible theories of evolution at the expense of some less plausible ones. When people talk about "evolution" being discredited, they are usually talking about one or a number of these theories, not all of them.

The Big Bang theory, for instance (which I, for one, consider patently absurd as it is generally accepted) is usually lumped in with the theory, when in fact, evolution can exist entirely without the Big Bang, and the Big Bang can exist without evolution. Don't get me started on elaborating how, I'm not a scientist, but I can see how one of the two theories can be entirely accepted or rejected without accepting or rejecting the other.

I must also point out in this context that Intelligent Design is not necessarily a competing theory with evolution. One deals with universal origins, the other with specific origins.

The Big Bang theory, for instance

I always thought that was when God's rubber burst.

That's not inclusive with evolution...I can see why people might want to lump it in because it deals with origin. The Big Bang is in a different category...astrophysics, whereas evolution is biological sciences(with geology for support). You're right, either of these ideas can exist without the other.


I, for one, am convinced that evolution does take place. It also doesn't have to be a kick in the balls of belief in God...or even intelligent design. Evolution can be the how, not the why.

In my mind, evolution is really easy to see...just consider dog breeds and that takes you halfway there. For a bigger scale, you dive into looking at fossils and comparing them to things that live today...similar structures, but totally different organisms. If you take in to account genetic diversity and isolation then it's not hard to accept that theory that things can evolve into new things-not directly, but over generations.

People weren't running around during the time of dinosaurs, neither were many of the animals we see today...so how did we/they get here? Also, I should note that I do not believe dinosaurs are God's faith tester or whatever the hell Creationists like to spout.

~Zoo

There's something about dog breeds that just doesn't make it proof of macro-evolution. They're all still DOGS. None have become new species. Just like humans have not evolved from humans into anything else, nor have any apes evolved into humans or anything else but apes. I submit that micro-evolution does exist, ie, changes within the same species. That you can see from dog breeds. But changing from one species to another... meh.

Yes, I am a Christian, stubby, and am not worried about it. I feel thaat we are called to stewardship, and I do my part, but I also believe in a sovereign God to worry about things bigger than me.But being Christian does not negate observable phenomena in nature. Nature has always survived.

This is so far away from Christianity I don’t think you can still call it that anymore. Humanity being separate from the animal kingdom is a core belief of all Christians.

No, you said "Freedoms", stubby. Whether or not that was your intent, that IS what you said. "Freedom" is synonymous with liberty.

I said some freedoms are what we gave up to fight terrorism not GW. And I don’t see the Government making a leadership decision that affects all of us as taking any freedoms away from the ones that disagree with that decision. Not saying you do ether just wanted to make that point.

The Big Bang theory, for instance (which I, for one, consider patently absurd as it is generally accepted) is usually lumped in with the theory, when in fact, evolution can exist entirely without the Big Bang, and the Big Bang can exist without evolution. Don't get me started on elaborating how, I'm not a scientist, but I can see how one of the two theories can be entirely accepted or rejected without accepting or rejecting the other.

All cosmological theories are out there. They’re intellectual stretches to try and make sense of something we won’t understand in our lifetimes. The newest theory that’s gaining ground in cosmology is “membrane theory”. You can google it for the details. It basically says that there are an infinite number of universes all separated by “membranes” that ripple like the surface of the ocean. Dark matter is not hypothesized to be the unseen factor causing the increasing expansion on the universe in this theory. The gravity from these other universes, stronger where two troughs in the membrane meet is used to explain not only the missing matter but also why galaxies form clusters. That’s what theories are all about. The more stuff a theory appears to explain the stronger and more accepted it becomes.

correct,. zoologist. Ask the majority of people who oppose evolution, however, and they see these theories as one and the same.

Oh, so now you are a theological expert as well? Sorry, I didn't know thaat you had read the entirety of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, in their original text, stubby.

There is as much debate in the Christian community as in the secular, and I, for one, am BEYOND appalled that you singlehandedly decided I couldn't possibly be a Christian because my opinion does not jibe 100% with YOURS!

You're right, you did. I misread your reply to mean that you were suggesting surrendering liberties to fight GW.

I believe man is a separate and distinct creation, stubby. Please point me to where I said I didn't. I don't believe in interspecies evolution AT ALL. Not in the slightest. But I DO believe that survival of the fittest is pretty much a proven concept. You CAN believe in survival of the fittest and be a Christian!

Big cats...lions, tigers, leopards and the like...they're still cats, but they can't produce viable offspring with each other.

Or...rabbits and hares, very similar, cannot breed.

Common ancestors, different species...



Evolution isn't one animal just turning into something else...it's an entire population interbreeding and the most fit (able to breed and survive) pass on their traits more often and the population as a whole becomes different in some way(some physical characteristic is promoted(longer necks) or repressed(vestigal wings)}. Fast forward a few million years and you've got something completely different from the original..

~Zoo

Reply By: Jythier

Just like humans have not evolved from humans into anything else, nor have any apes evolved into humans or anything else but apes.

This is a common misconception about the theory of evolution. Mutation is the mechanism of evolution and occurs all the time, but evolution only occurs when certain mutations do better, (survive longer, breed more), than others. Humanity cares for it’s week and sick so natural selection is almost slowed to a halt. Evolution also halts when a species does so well that none of its mutations offer a significant advantage over another. That's why crocodiles and cockroaches for instance have remained unchanged. And that's why all the apes didn't evolve into humans.

Mutation is the mechanism of evolution and occurs all the time

Actually, natural selection is the mechanism...but mutation can be a component.  A significant mutation is actually rather rare...either positive or negative...most mutations are benign and don't matter in the slightest. It should be noted that the mutation is on the genetic level. A purely physical mutation(like toxic waste creating extra legs on frogs) is not able to be passed along. Usually it's a matter of favorable traits(depending on the environment) being passed along. Selective breeding is a form of evolution, but humans haven't been around long enough to actually "create" a new species.

~Zoo

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish

There's that human arrogance again. Species have overgrazed their habitat many times through history. Top level predators have reduced many species lower on the food chain to near extinction. We may be the latest, and questionably, the greatest, but we are not irreplaceable. Nature always finds a way stubby.

My appologies If I missunderstood this statement to mean that you think we're just another animal species.

Which led to my comment about your beliefs being far away from Christianities beliefs.

we're just another animal species.

We are...just ones that are really good at innovation. With that and a fairly long lifespan and capacity for learning and we're able to pass along ideas and build upon them.

~Zoo

I agree, but I'm not saying i'm a Christian.

Selective breeding is a form of evolution, but humans haven't been around long enough to actually "create" a new species.

I think we’re going to be responsible for our own evolution from here on out.

There is another, better spin to this SF, the "caring humans" aspect of us is transmitted, as opposed to the not-so-caring brute. I do not believe natural selection ever "slows or halts" as you suggest. Darwin himself pointed to this in his Descent of Man. Be well.

There is another, better spin to this SF, the "caring humans" aspect of us is transmitted, as opposed to the not-so-caring brute. I do not believe natural selection ever "slows or halts" as you suggest. Darwin himself pointed to this in his Descent of Man. Be well.

There are practically unchanged pre-historic animals walking among us so I would say it could be significantly slowed. It’s allot slower now than when we weren’t the top of the food chain. I did say, “Almost halt”.

The increased demands on our minds will certainly raise the overall intelligence for some gene pools but I do not believe that will happen for gene pools that are not intellectually challenged over the generations. If there daily activities include mostly manual labor each generation will retain the traits necessary to be good at that and not waste energy on developing the mind. Nature is very frugal.

I really believe that we shape our own evolution from here on out. Nature is way to slow.

Why are we questioning whether man can affect the environment? Ask the zoologist about our world's biodiversity. Ask him how inflexiblly time-consuming it is to replace a species lost to deforestation. CO2 emmissions are the topping on the cake. A point to fixate on in order to right your logic is what will happen if humanity continues to reproduce like we have been doing. It is arrogant to believe science can indefinately stymy the consequences.

And Al Gore makes several valid points, despite everything.

Or because they couldn't speak english