Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[buffalo]

Despite the admittedly small odds, there is at least evidence that it happened, which is far more than you have to support your hypotheses. Relatively speaking, evolution is infinitely more likely than IDC - evolution has evidence supporting it, no other hypothesis has any. Non-zero divided by zero is infinity. So you’re not really in a position to go citing the odds. And against the backdrop of time over which the universe has existed, the odds are not so remote as they first seem.

I have no idea what you mean by this comment. Are you still equivocating on the meaning of “faith?”

God clearly does not subject himself to any kind of test whatsoever for his existence! Given your claimed (but not evident) support of science, I wonder why you believe in him.

And I have to ask - how do you know what God’s intentions are? You’re confidently claiming that he’s decided not to prove his existence, one wonders how you’ve come by this privileged information. In fact, one might almost suspect you are making stuff up in an attempt to justify an irrational belief in a non-existent phenomenon.

But no such rational reasoning has ever been published - just wishy-washy philosophical car-crashes of faulty logic and baseless assumptions. As for Revelation - what is that other than someone’s personal conviction? Why should the rest of us be convinced just because you are? If I were convinced that everybody had an invisble head in addition to their visible one, would that be enough for you to believe it too?

Correct, the odds are indeed small.

Hello - IDvolution is the conclusion reached by connecting the dots. The conclusion is reached by drawing on most of the very same science you use to claim micro-evolution, aka adaptation (we now are starting to understand exactly what programmed adaptation can do). In comparison science does far more work than is published in fields other than origins. It just so happens all the musings about forbidden subject_____ is well publicized. Actually we have more common acceptance of science except for the narrow areas of human origins and molecules to man belief.

Baloney - the odds are insurmountable. And the age of the earth just lost .6B years further increasing the odds.

Yes - faith - you have it - against insurmountable odds you cling to materialism.

Why I believe in God and still in science? Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. The “word” of God cannot be in error. Revelation has a guarantor in the Holy Spirit. Truth cannot contradict truth. Now science is the study of the world around us. The reasoning of science is fallible as it is done by limited humans. It is limited by its own definition. Over and over again we see science overturn its own findings. To cling to such a shaky system as a complete description of the world is irrational. Between that and the odds I cannot see how you can cling to it. Perhaps the low numbers of atheists should speak for itself.

There is so much evidence for God from reasoning. Couple that with Revelation and it is very persuasive.

God has shown His existence and at least one time did subject Himself to an empirical test. This was when He appeared to the Apostles after His resurrection and Thomas did not believe until He put his fingers into His wounds.

Why do Catholics understand God not to be empirically testable? Think about it - if He came down and appeared in all His glory you may submit, but in what fashion would you submit? His show of force would be convincing, but like a father and a son He would rather you love Him freely.

If you like we can revisit the Arguments for God and discuss them one by one. My guess is you will summarily dismiss them due to a priori bias.

No - to the invisible head. This type of argument is bogus and you could do better.

 

[buffalo]

No - the former is speculation and the latter is established science.

If you insist on equivocating on the word “faith,” that’s fine - we both know you’re doing it. Calling upon the “truth of Revelation” is ridiculous - I might just as well claim a Revelation that evolution is true. Although I don’t need to, because I have something far more valuable than “Revelation” (aka. personal conviction, aka. guessing) - I have evidence. Slam dunk, baby.

My friend, you can’t even define IDvolution. You can’t describe the mechanism of “breathing” the “super-language” of DNA. You can’t define the “kinds”. I doubt very much that you can define “super-language” in any terms other than your own subjective ones. So really, IDvolution is nothing but your own pet term for a phenomen which has no rational basis for existing.

You carry on believing that, boyo. If you think that ID is “scientific knowledge,” then you’re flat wrong, and I feel no threat. Why would I, anyway - true science is the pursuit of knowledge. Whatever that knowledge turns out to be, that’s just fine. It’s you and your fellow IDC pretenders who are trying to bend science to reach your presupposed conclusion.

It would be scary if you had a realistic chance of hijacking science in the way you’re attempting to. In fact, it is scary that so many otherwise intelligent people, in positions of power, share your superstitions. But all the indications are that in general, more and more people with each new generation are realising that 2,000 year old ghost stories are no longer necessary to explain and guide our existence.

After studying Revelation, history, Scripture, etc… it is pretty obvious it is real. Events happened and they were recorded. The Deposit of Faith has been handed on intact.

You have no evidence - molecules to man is a worldview and even the top evos know it has real problems. Why do you think ID is such a threat? So fight it at all costs even though you accept the fact design exists. That is irrational.

Design exists. Intelligent Design exists. It is all around you. To deny it is foolish. It is also irrational to prohibit science to pursue its study. There are two possible outcomes here - design exists but not differrentiable because it is the frame itself, or it is a matter of time that we will be able to formulize it. No need to bend science at all, supporting research is coming in faster and faster. How long will you hold out?

2000 year old ghost stories? The lure of secularism and no philosophical training is largely responsible.

One can always tell by the reaction to an idea that starts to gain traction. Thanks for the validation. You would be better off just to ignore it.

 

[buffalo]

Common descent is proven. Here is what I wrote in another discussion:

Common descent

The great triumph of the theory of evolution lies in the stunning convergence of data from paleontology, comparative physiology and genetics. The tree of life, i.e. the pattern of descent of living beings from one another (from bacteria to humans), that can be drafted from the former two exactly correlates with the tree of life from genetic data alone, where descent is analyzed from mutations, gene patterns, gene recombinations, chromosome patterns etc. (exactly = with discrepancies that are so minor that they can safely be assumed to fall within the error of scientific investigation). This convergence cannot be explained in any other way than by actual common descent. The only alternative explanation would be that God faked the evidence and made it look like common descent. But would anyone really want to portray Him as a liar and a charlatan?

Paleontology alone has had spectacular successes. All fossils that have been found have been dated exactly as evolutionary theory had predicted. Never has an intermediary fossil had an age that was not in line with expectations (this would have brought down evolution like a house of cards). Old contentious areas are being resolved. For example, in the last 10-15 years finally fossils of transitional forms have been found between land mammals and whales – just like evolutionary theory had predicted (and again, genetic data are fully in synch with predictions and the findings of paleontology).

In his book The Language of God Francis Collins, famous biologist and Christian, shows how not only genes for different enzymes are aligned in the same sequence within mouse and human chromosomes, but also that there are truncated genes in the same spots that have lost their functions and thus are “junk” remnants that are simply carried along upon gene replication. The only reasonable explanation can be that they came from a common ancestor. If the genes in mice and humans were both designed from scratch by God, why would He insert such functionless (yes, they can be shown to have lost function) “junk” remnants at the same positions? This explanation simply makes no sense.

Apes have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46 (24 and 23 chromosome pairs, respectively). How can humans then originate from apes? Well, it can be shown that the chromosome reduction in humans is found in chromosome 2: this chromosome is in fact a fusion of two chromosomes, as can be precisely shown by the fusion spot, and by the centromere and telomere arrangement (this fact is shown by the Catholic Ken Miller, a hero for evolution education, in each one of his recent talks). A telomere is only found at the end of chromosomes, not in the middle. The fact that human chromosome 2 has telomeres in the middle can only be explained as fusion of two chromosomes. And, there is gene homology in human chromosome 2 with two of the ape chromosomes, as expected if chromosome 2 is a descendant from these two ape chromosomes. Also, the size of human chromosome 2 is exactly the sum of the two ape chromosomes.

The only alternative explanation is, again, to claim that the Creator faked the evidence: He perfectly made it look like chromosome 2 in humans is such a fusion of chromosomes. But would anyone really want to portray Him as a liar and a charlatan?

(I need to put it scientifically more accurately: we don’t originate from apes, but from a common ancestor of modern apes and humans. By the way, this discusses the descent of the human body. The rational soul by which we distinguish ourselves from apes, and by which we are made “in the image of God”, is a different issue.)

Many other examples can be given, but it can be said with confidence:
Common descent is proven without a shadow of a doubt. There is no other reasonable explanation of the overwhelming mountain of correlating data.

Here we go again - the deceiver God argument. It is bogus. If you are walking on the beach and you see left footprints as far as you can see should you conclude a deceiver was at work?

You are aware the “tree of life” has fallen and is now a bush?

Care to share the sheer number of morphological changes from land mammal to whale? And you are going to claim this happened in how many years? And now we know DNA actively fights against mutations so that just made the odds worse. And natural selection? How about the latest understanding that it is a conservative process not a creative one?

How about the fossil record showing abrupt appearance and then stasis? And the 500 or so “immortal” genes present right from the beginning?

To say they are junk is an argument from ignorance. Junk DNA is gone, no more, nada. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg in regard to DNA.

 

[buffalo]

It is a real issue. Here is an excerpt from the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith:4:6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

answersingenesis.org/about/faithThat says that science will not be allowed if AiG get control. Scientists will only be allowed to publish results that conform with scripture. That would not be science any more.

ICR’s tenets place similar theological restrictions on science.

Would you consider an organisation whach said: “We will only allow scientific results if they conform with our interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita.” to be a genuinely scientific organisation?

rossum

C’mon rossum, is that really what you are worried about?

In any case science should be interested in the complete truth. Man can error and needs the compass of truth to inform his reasoning. Revelation gives us this certainty.

 

[donsnow]

That’s a fair comment, I am talking about science in principle. I accept what you say about the numerous influences on science as a practical activity; nevertheless, the principles, the established methodology of science, is well-established and very clear. Individual scientific results can be skewed or misinterpreted, but the beauty of science is that someone else can repeat the experiments and make corrections. It’s a sad fact that when those corrections amount to a negation of the politically-motivated sensationalist original result, it doesn’t get anywhere near as much press. Nevertheless, it does happen, frequently.

The methodology of science is pure, but the application of that methodology is often perverted. Nevertheless, science owes its undeniable success to its intrinsic openness to criticism and correction.

So to believe that, for example, evolution is wrong but has survived as the predominant (in fact, only) scientific theory purely due to external influences on the result of experiments, is to succumb to a conspiracy theory on a massively delusional scale.

I believe my original point is perfectly valid.
I seriously doubt that, on many levels!!

Hello, wanstronian,

Thank you for your kind and courteous rebuttal.

I don’t believe that “evolution is wrong”. I believe that what biologists and others call evolution is part of the creation of our Creator, and that what moderns call evolution is sound evidence to the existence of God.
I do believe that Darwin didn’t have it right, and that Darwinism has obscured research into how things happen. I understand that there are different theories in addition to Darwin’s, about evolution. It’s so sad, that only Darwinism gets any press in the public schools system.

God is pure love.
Don

 

[donsnow]

Common descent is proven. Here is what I wrote in another discussion:

Common descent

The great triumph of the theory of evolution lies in the stunning convergence of data from paleontology, comparative physiology and genetics. The tree of life, i.e. the pattern of descent of living beings from one another (from bacteria to humans), that can be drafted from the former two exactly correlates with the tree of life from genetic data alone, where descent is analyzed from mutations, gene patterns, gene recombinations, chromosome patterns etc. (exactly = with discrepancies that are so minor that they can safely be assumed to fall within the error of scientific investigation). This convergence cannot be explained in any other way than by actual common descent. The only alternative explanation would be that God faked the evidence and made it look like common descent. But would anyone really want to portray Him as a liar and a charlatan?

Paleontology alone has had spectacular successes. All fossils that have been found have been dated exactly as evolutionary theory had predicted. Never has an intermediary fossil had an age that was not in line with expectations (this would have brought down evolution like a house of cards). Old contentious areas are being resolved. For example, in the last 10-15 years finally fossils of transitional forms have been found between land mammals and whales – just like evolutionary theory had predicted (and again, genetic data are fully in synch with predictions and the findings of paleontology).

In his book The Language of God Francis Collins, famous biologist and Christian, shows how not only genes for different enzymes are aligned in the same sequence within mouse and human chromosomes, but also that there are truncated genes in the same spots that have lost their functions and thus are “junk” remnants that are simply carried along upon gene replication. The only reasonable explanation can be that they came from a common ancestor. If the genes in mice and humans were both designed from scratch by God, why would He insert such functionless (yes, they can be shown to have lost function) “junk” remnants at the same positions? This explanation simply makes no sense.

Apes have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46 (24 and 23 chromosome pairs, respectively). How can humans then originate from apes? Well, it can be shown that the chromosome reduction in humans is found in chromosome 2: this chromosome is in fact a fusion of two chromosomes, as can be precisely shown by the fusion spot, and by the centromere and telomere arrangement (this fact is shown by the Catholic Ken Miller, a hero for evolution education, in each one of his recent talks). A telomere is only found at the end of chromosomes, not in the middle. The fact that human chromosome 2 has telomeres in the middle can only be explained as fusion of two chromosomes. And, there is gene homology in human chromosome 2 with two of the ape chromosomes, as expected if chromosome 2 is a descendant from these two ape chromosomes. Also, the size of human chromosome 2 is exactly the sum of the two ape chromosomes.

The only alternative explanation is, again, to claim that the Creator faked the evidence: He perfectly made it look like chromosome 2 in humans is such a fusion of chromosomes. But would anyone really want to portray Him as a liar and a charlatan?

(I need to put it scientifically more accurately: we don’t originate from apes, but from a common ancestor of modern apes and humans. By the way, this discusses the descent of the human body. The rational soul by which we distinguish ourselves from apes, and by which we are made “in the image of God”, is a different issue.)

Many other examples can be given, but it can be said with confidence:
Common descent is proven without a shadow of a doubt. There is no other reasonable explanation of the overwhelming mountain of correlating data.

Hi, Al,

Quoting you, “…(I need to put it scientifically more accurately: we don’t originate from apes, but from a common ancestor of modern apes and humans… )”

All I said, is I reject descent of species. And, you come back with several paragraphs about common descent (which is not descent of species) and conclude with the above quote.

I’ve been here before. Your mountain of evidence is all circumstantial evidence, not falsifiable in a laboratory. The TOE cannot be falsified because no human has the life span to observe all the adaptations of the past. Consequently, all those inferences are circumstantial, not substantial, evidence.

Did you read my reply to samian? I really don’t feel like repeating that in this post to you, but my reply to samian was a good thumbnail sketch of where I’m at.

God loves you,
Don

 

[rossum]

C’mon rossum, is that really what you are worried about?

Not really, though it might be more of a problem in the USA; the AiG types seem to have more political clout over there. I was responding to Ed’s “if Christians get control…” (bold added).

Revelation gives us this certainty.

It gave Martin Luther the certainty that he was right as well. It gives Rabbis the certainty that the Messiah has not come yet. It gives Hindus the certainty that Krishna is the incarnation of Vishnu.

Me, I would rather go for something less contentious.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Not really, though it might be more of a problem in the USA; the AiG types seem to have more political clout over there. I was responding to Ed’s “if Christians get control…” (bold added).

It gave Martin Luther the certainty that he was right as well. It gives Rabbis the certainty that the Messiah has not come yet. It gives Hindus the certainty that Krishna is the incarnation of Vishnu.

Me, I would rather go for something less contentious.

rossum

As you parse through Revelation one can see that some still haven’t captured the full essence of Revelation, including Catholics. However, some know more truth than others.

 

[samiam1611]

science owes its undeniable success to its intrinsic openness to criticism and correction.

And that is in stark contrast to religious claims of truth. Yet religion is successful in its own way too - their denial of falibility has fooled the masses into thinking that unwillingness to change = must be right. In science’s quest for the truth, it welcomes new evidence. In religion’s stubborness to admit it was wrong at one time, it distances itself further and further from the truth. I wonder why so many people buy in to claims that are not falsifiable, I guess the Catechism was right about at least one thing: “one may well call man a religious being.”

 

[buffalo]

And that is in stark contrast to religious claims of truth. Yet religion is successful in its own way too - their denial of falibility has fooled the masses into thinking that unwillingness to change = must be right. In science’s quest for the truth, it welcomes new evidence. In religion’s stubborness to admit it was wrong at one time, it distances itself further and further from the truth. I wonder why so many people buy in to claims that are not falsifiable, I guess the Catechism was right about at least one thing: “one may well call man a religious being.”

Yeah right - welcome is hardly the correct word…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

And that is in stark contrast to religious claims of truth. Yet religion is successful in its own way too - their denial of falibility has fooled the masses into thinking that unwillingness to change = must be right. In science’s quest for the truth, it welcomes new evidence. In religion’s stubborness to admit it was wrong at one time, it distances itself further and further from the truth. I wonder why so many people buy in to claims that are not falsifiable, I guess the Catechism was right about at least one thing: “one may well call man a religious being.”

Personally I think Science owes it’s success to reconceptualizing any failure as 1 more step towards the truth… or blaming embarrassments to being as results of external pressure, rather than admitting internally founded ideologies…

Science welcomes new evidence, but the mainstream practice of the same
, I find, is suspicious of any such that falls outside of established dogmas…

Such is life!

 

[edwest2]

Man is in danger of making himself a god - at least in his own mind - whenever he thinks that the work of his mind and his hands are his own. “I don’t need some primitive, irrational belief! Look what I made without God and without the Church.”

“Man is the measure of all things.” Protagoras, circa 480 B.C.

“Stand away from my creations you believers in fairy tales. They are not worthy for use by those who pray to an invisible man in the sky. Why do you despise the knowledge I bring you and insist on repeating the words of ancient sheep herders?”

In this way, some unknowingly take the good science has done and worship it, and by worshipping it, they worship the men who made such things – beings greater than other men. As the devil told Eve in the Garden, “Ye shall be as gods.”

From Communion and Stewardship:

“It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Well, what I have against some skeptics and academics, is that some “scientists” throw out perfectly valid evidence of certain creatures because it’s anecdotal. They won’t recognize anecdotal evidence as valid.
Maybe if biologists ever gets around to accepting anecdotal evidence about certain creatures I might change my stand against circumstantial evidence about other facets of macro biology…

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well, what I have against some skeptics and academics, is that some “scientists” throw out perfectly valid evidence of certain creatures because it’s anecdotal. They won’t recognize anecdotal evidence as valid.
Maybe if biologists ever gets around to accepting anecdotal evidence about certain creatures I might change my stand against circumstantial evidence about other facets of macro biology…

God loves all of you,
Don

Personally, I reject the term “anecdotal” with regard to experiential evidence - appallingly dismissive. Referring to multitudinal experiences of humanity throughout the ages as ‘anecdotal’ demonstrates exactly how blithely self-righteous scientism becomes in it’s exclusivist rejection of evidence it cannot apply our limited qualificatory methods to

 

[donsnow]

Personally, I reject the term “anecdotal” with regard to experiential evidence - appallingly dismissive. Referring to multitudinal experiences of humanity throughout the ages as ‘anecdotal’ demonstrates exactly how blithely self-righteous scientism becomes in it’s exclusivist rejection of evidence it cannot apply our limited qualificatory methods to

Hi, Mystic Banana,

Thank you.

I once read the forward to a book titled Asimov on Velikovsky, or words to that effect. The protocol for science which he described, to protect good information, read exactly like the Medieval HRCC’s stringent screening of texts for heresy. He lambasted Velikovsky, a controversial writer who wrote among other works, Ages in Chaos and Worlds in Collision. Anyway, Asimov showed where scientists screen out unwanted data, because it doesn’t fit the (these next are my words for what he wrote) academic preconceptions.

God loves you,
Don

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hi, Mystic Banana,

Thank you.

I once read the forward to a book titled Asimov on Velikovsky, or words to that effect. The protocol for science which he described, to protect good information, read exactly like the Medieval HRCC’s stringent screening of texts for heresy. He lambasted Velikovsky, a controversial writer who wrote among other works, Ages in Chaos and Worlds in Collision. Anyway, Asimov showed where scientists screen out unwanted data, because it doesn’t fit the (these next are my words for what he wrote) academic preconceptions.

God loves you,
Don

I would say let asimov speak for himself. Why can’t you accept that our physical bodies evolved from animals which in turn evolved from smaller organisms, which in turn formed out of a pool of chemicals?

 

[vz71]

I would say let asimov speak for himself. Why can’t you accept that our physical bodies evolved from animals which in turn evolved from smaller organisms, which in turn formed out of a pool of chemicals?

Because there is plenty of evidence to show this is not the case.

 

[Neildown]

Sorry I took so long in responding.

I appreciate what your saying. It has no true relevance in relation to faith. However, my point is that literal interpretations of the Genesis accounts of creation make us look pretty silly in light of scientific evidence. We can’t just ignore scientific evidence; or historical, literary and redaction criticism.

Again, good point, but we were not put here to share the world-views of unbelievers. The Romans obviously didn’t believe in things the way we did/do, and they were killing us for it [and much in pure sport too!]. We still continued believing what we did despite that and we haven’t turned out the worse for it. You see, I am not ignoring scientific evidence or historical fact. Creation has just as much relevance as any other theory out there. It’s just too far-out for people of little faith to consider though. My point is - that’s kind of what we were warned about on many occasions, especially in the Bible. People are going to laugh at what we believe in and pressure us into compromise. Opinions don’t make a person or a belief silly - facts do. I have yet to see the facts that make Creation irrelevant and furthermore I have yet to see the facts that make it any less acceptable than evolution or intelligent design. Therefore I push even further to say that Creation is the most solid theory of our origin in existence.

There are different interpretations regarding the mechanism of evolution. A human embryo is and was always destined to become human. Ape embryo’s were always destined to become apes. My understanding of the mechanism of evolution is not that a group of ape stayed apes and another group became human. The simple way to explain it would be that all life came from a core material; a nucleus so to speak, and diversified down different paths.

To assume that all life started from a nucleus, or “core” such as you say, would be to assume the earth is billions upon billions of years old according to the odds present. We still do not have an accurate guess on how old the earth really is - this is evident due to the fact that earth’s lifespan has been predicted countless times over the past, and as far as I see, it’s still not showing much promise.

No. They would not have been ‘men’ as such if they suckled young. I’m talking about a stage prior to creation of man and woman. It explains why men have nipples. I do believe there is a male animal that suckles young, (I stand to be corrected) and the male seahorse gives birth. But yes, I can understand why it creates a certain image you’d rather not think about ! I suppose it would appeal to women more than men. I personally think sharing the responsibility of nursing children would be great and would love to believe men once experienced childbirth. I once read of a custom in an African tribe. When the woman is in childbirth, the man lies on the roof of the mud hut with a rope tied to a certain part of his anatomy. The woman holds the other end and when she has a contraction, she pulls the rope so the man canexperience the pain of childbirth with her. I suggested it to my husband but he wasn’t very keen on the idea. Wonder why?

I also heard someone say in current debates about Jesus that he must have been celibate, as no married man would ever have forbade divorce. Sorry, I’m going off into a tangent now.

So this is assuming we were once hermaphroditic ape-things? I must disagree… again… As unborn children we are assigned a sex, given tissue, and given DNA. The DNA just determines what goes where. Therefore we need not have had hermaphroditic ancestors for men to have nipples if it was already in our DNA, which would be accurate with the creation theory. I don’t recall any male mammals that suckle their young. Yes, the seahorse - but one in exactly how many other examples? Meh, I suppose so. Really? I don’t… Besides, that is something the Catholic Church is against. I’ve heard of that tradition before - that’s why I don’t plan on marrying in Africa . [Yes, man and woman become one in Matrimony, but really, I think that’s stretching the limit just a bit too much - pun not intended.] Another thing about us originating from hermaphrodites - is it really quite logical to assume that? Considering a creature with that sexual alignment would have a higher chance of reproduction wouldn’t it go against the law of natural selection for it to evolve into 2 separate sexes?

Well, that’s really the point. It’s possible. I wouldn’t propose it’s a fact. I like the tale of creation in The Chronicles of Narnia as well. I like the part were Aslan gives some animals but not others the ability to talk but not others, and they look different from the one’s that can’t talk although they are the same animal. The story also goes that an ‘evil’ enters the world and because of that, some beasts may turn bad. In which case, they will loose the ability to speak and revert back to being dumb beasts. In an amusing way it supports my theory de-evolution. Anyone who’s seen the Gerry Springer show might know what I mean.

Yes, but if we have to consider every possibility out there we aren’t going to get very far. It is possible that a purple elephant will stomp into my house within the next 24 hours too. We would be better off looking over the most prominent theories one at a time. Of course that is generally what we are doing with this blog. I took the ‘losing of speech’ more as a loss of grace. Think of speech being in place of a soul. Go bad, lose your soul, etc.

I think that’s all…

 

[samiam1611]

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2
I would say let asimov speak for himself. Why can’t you accept that our physical bodies evolved from animals which in turn evolved from smaller organisms, which in turn formed out of a pool of chemicals?

Because there is plenty of evidence to show this is not the case.

This video and this video makes evolution seem so obvious to me - our descent from animals.
This one is cool too. (Jump to 1:20 for the really amazing part.) It’s like soo obvious we are related to primates…which renders Adam and Eve obviously false.

 

[edwest2]

Divine revelation trumps.

Peace,
Ed