http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/nature02564_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=

quote:

---

“Human?chimpanzee comparative genome research is essential for narrowing down genetic changes involved in the acquisition of unique human features, such as highly developed cognitive functions, bipedalism or the use of complex language. Here, we report the high-quality DNA sequence of 33.3 megabases of chimpanzee chromosome 22. By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. Furthermore, we demonstrate different expansion of particular subfamilies of retrotransposons between the lineages, suggesting different impacts of retrotranspositions on human and chimpanzee evolution. The genomic changes after speciation and their biological consequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized.”

---

Most important point in the article:

quote:

---

...the major physical, physiological and behavioural differences between the two species do not result simply from an accumulation of many small alterations, the challenge to find the most crucial changes is still ahead.

---

Why is this important?

quote:

---

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

- Charles Darwin

---

In other words... Darwinism has been disproven with empirical evidence (again). Unfortunately, as you can see in that last quote, the scientists who did the research did not make this connection but merely say(in essence) that they'll need to keep searching to discover how evolution "must" have occurred.

http://saintsalive.com/audiolibrary.html

Look for:
Evolution vs Creation Highly Recommended!
Fossils, Dinosaurs & Geology Highly Recommended! (Haven't listened to this one yet, but it's a follow up to the first, they're about an hour each)

Although all the others are well worth a listen.

In Christ

Milkshake

------------------
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way." -- C. S. Lewis

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited June 10, 2004).]

------------------
Soterion Studios

[This message has been edited by feo (edited June 13, 2004).]

On a side note I've yet to see ANY group that uses known to be foolproof.

------------------
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way." -- C. S. Lewis

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

It is an awesome site! You can find some more good creation vs. evolution links on my old site here:

http://sntb.addr.com

I think scientists who use evolution (ecologists/anthropologists/biologists?) are divided into two camps: people who cling to the original smooth-evolution theory that uses a series of small mutations, and people who admit that, for some reason, evolution makes large jumps that Darwin wouldn't have predicted. I'm not sure how or if they explain these jumps, or if anyone here would be interested in ascribing them to a universal, guiding force. (I'm one of those people that thinks the Bible and evolution might fit together...)

------------------
-------------------------
"True = false."
-Godel

"These findings do not support Homo erectus developmentally as an intermediate between chimplike ancestors and modern humans."

That's the pertinent information. Otherwise, a good portion of the article is speculation and, quite frankly, damage control.

Orion, I'm fairly open-minded on this subject (call me a "Middle-Earther", minus the hobbits ) and though I think that possibility unlikely based upon the evidence I'll at least attempt to be open to it. The strife between Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, and Theistic evolutionists has caused a divide that has hampered Christian's ability to reach the lost. If we could all put aside our quibblings (or at least keep them civil!) and work together we could have a larger affect on the world.

BTW, when you say "God uses evolution" do you mean:

1. God just built the Earth and the universe and then let random chance take control? Albeit this "random chance" would be guided by the physical laws he set into place.

2. God jump-started the process and built the original multitude of cellular organisms during the "Cambrian Explosion" and let random chance take control?

3. God didn't let random chance come in but built DNA so that it was an intelligent, self-modifying program? Scientists have made great strides recently but large portions of DNA are still a vast unknown. Creationists DO know that it has built-in adaptability functions (along with multitudes of backups and error correction functions) but it's "possible" that it can self-modify on a macro scale.

4. God didn't build macro-scale self-modification into DNA but intelligently "tweaked" the code over long periods of time?

There are problems with all of those ideas but I'm not looking to argue, just to understand where you're coming from.

As a side note, scientists are now finding based upon empirical evidence from China (via research by J.Y. Chen) that the history of life is represented in an “inverted cone” shape, not a branching tree, as Darwin’s theory predicted. It means that biodiversity was wide at the base and narrow at the top, the very opposite of the expected tree of life.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited July 15, 2004).]

True.

"2. God jump-started the process and built the original multitude of cellular organisms during the "Cambrian Explosion" and let random chance take control?"

Sounds right.

"3. God didn't let random chance come in but built DNA so that it was an intelligent, self-modifying program? Scientists have made great strides recently but large portions of DNA are still a vast unknown. Creationists DO know that it has built-in adaptability functions (along with multitudes of backups and error correction functions) but it's "possible" that it can self-modify on a macro scale."

Partly true.

"4. God didn't build macro-scale self-modification into DNA but intelligently "tweaked" the code over long periods of time?"

More so.

I'm not precisely sure on what I think, but, generally, I think that God created the world (universe) while outside of time, basically. Brcause, generally, God isoutside of time. Possibly, part of God is outside of time,and part of Him is in it; the part Outside works through His laws and doesn't interfere, while His face inside time intervenes in the normal process in certain ways. This is not exact, of course.

"...an “inverted cone” shape, not a branching tree..."

In Evolution, there are two forces: mutation, which increases diversity, and natural selection, which decreases it. Possibly, mutations are rarely succesfull unless they depend on 'divine intervention'. Anyway, as I understand it, natural selection forms the inverted cone, and then mutation varies only those things that are not decided upon yet; for instance, once the general structure of a cell was discovered, other structures quickly dissapeared, narrowing the pyramid. Once human intelligence was reached, humans quickly began taking over the environment, to such an extent that we caused mass extinctions, and may even ruin the environment for ourselves. (Such is the natural process; that is, the new dominant species causes a disequilibreum in the food chain as the environment is retooled to feed it.)

An interesting website on the topic (decide on it's truth for yourself) is www.see.org; another might be www.arcosanti.org.

------------------
"True = false."
-Godel

You also misunderstood my "...an “inverted cone” shape, not a branching tree..." comment. Darwin believed that a single micro-organism was the ancestor of all life. In reality, the diversity of life at that scale is wide while narrow at the other end (complex life like us).

Of course there is a wide variety of microorganisms. Just because it starts with one microorganism doesn't mean it stays that way. I'm not sure I understand your point of view, Gump. Can you provide a link to the research you speak of?

Anyway, I'll explain my point of view just 'cuz I feel like it. It sems to me that God, in his infinite wisdom, created physical laws. Why, then, would he break those physical laws? Whatever he does, he does it within those physical laws. This may seem very odd to some, but for God it is possible. I don't think he ever has to break the 'laws'.

So there is always a scientific explanation for any event, like Creation. Often, the explanations our scientists give us are not very believable, but that is because they have somehow become overconfident in their theories, and sometimes forget how little evidence they are going on. Science is not purely scientific in its current form, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth something. The answers are out there, and can be useful at times (as toasters and coffee makers prove), so don't try to discourage science completely just because it can be arrogant.

Maybe some day scientists will have very good evidence for where humans came from, rather than the sketchy outline they have now. They may then claim that Adam and Eve never existed, but we know better. However, if this happens we should not go against the hard evidence and just simply say they are wrong; we should find out what the hard evidence really means, because if we absolutely trust that we are right, how can we fear the hard evidence? We know it must agree with us somehow, and once we figure it out then we will know something truly worth knowing about our origins. We will not only know THAT the bible is true, we will UNDERSTAND HOW it is true.

And about evolution: I believe it happens, but the hard scientific evidence doesn't yet tell us exactly how it happens, how often, etc.- it has been observed to some extent (in Canadian squirrels and mold), but we don't truly know how it behaves in the natural world. And we don't know if we can point to it as our origin.

You see, some scientific fact has to be our origin from my point of view, because everything that God created is ruled by His natural laws, and thus forms for physical resons. Evolution is probably one of those physical reasons though not necessarily in its current theoretical form.

Also, about the beginning of the Universe: All science knows about it is A) what the stars around us are made of, B)how far other galaxies are travelling away from us, and C)what 'background radiation' looks like. With our poor understanding of the minutae of physics, such huge distances as tend to be available in the universe could create oddities we have no way of anticipating, especially if the quantum mechanics theories on what empty space behaves like are a little off. Therefore, the current scientific explanations are worth a little, but not much. Think about how many times science has corrected itself before believing anything.

But think about how many times science has turned out right before doubting anything.

So overall, science is really a trivial thing because of its flimsyness, but really it is quite powerful, and the only thing we have. The only thing un-Christian about it is the individual scientists. And many scientists, even physicists, are Christan, or at least Muslim, which is close enough for me.

As a closing note, my opinions are very flexible so yell at me if I'm wrong and I might just start agereing with you rather than yelling back. Especially if you're right.

------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
-Douglas Adams, atheist

"I actually offered those four points as alternatives that have nothing to do with each other..."

I know. It's just a habit of mine to rectify multiple points of view, because everything is true anyway (see signature). God built the laws of the universe, and then let them pretty much take controll. That includes random chance. Rules within the universe, possibly even rules which can be put under the category of divine intervention, tweaked DNA over a long period of time to be an "intelligent, self-modifying program"; also, similar rules created the cambrian explosion and other similar events.

"You also misunderstood my "...an “inverted cone” shape, not a branching tree..." comment. Darwin believed that a single micro-organism was the ancestor of all life. In reality, the diversity of life at that scale is wide while narrow at the other end (complex life like us)."

Well. obviously, things couldn't have evolved from a single cell. Whatever process produces cells was NOT a singular event; there was probably a large variety of cells in the mix. The process that creates cells out of other chemicals can be thought of as a mutation, which increases variation. However, these first cells were probably physically pretty similar, although genetically VERY VERY DIFFERENT. Today, cells are genetically very similar, but physically very different. Life has evolved to pay more attention to exactly what DNA says, so that little differences mean a lot more. Also, if one were to compare the physical differences between, say, a blood cell and a nerve cell, they would probably be greater than a random pair of cells from the primordial ocean.

In addition to this, evolution NARROWS DOWN from a massive number of possibilities, and then BROADENS OUT the possibility it picks; for instance, all six-legged, three-sectioned insects (that is, all insects) are evolved from one group of fairly similar crestations. This variety is produced by 1. mutations that change DNA, 2. mutations that change how certain bits of DNA are interpreted (usually by turning genes on and off), and 3. practically endless recombination of any variations, whether they already exist or are produced.

DRAN:

"Anyway, I'll explain my point of view just 'cuz I feel like it. It sems to me that God, in his infinite wisdom, created physical laws. Why, then, would he break those physical laws? Whatever he does, he does it within those physical laws. This may seem very odd to some, but for God it is possible. I don't think he ever has to break the 'laws'."

Sounds pretty good.

"All science knows about it is A) what the stars around us are made of, B)how far other galaxies are travelling away from us, and C)what 'background radiation' looks like...the current scientific explanations are worth a little, but not much. Think about how many times science has corrected itself before believing anything."

Well, the nature of science is self-correction. Right now, it beleives that stars are older than the universe, although they are created after it. Odd, that.

"The only thing un-Christian about it is the individual scientists. And many scientists, even physicists, are Christan, or at least Muslim, which is close enough for me."

Well, a lot of 'em are atheist. When modern science was first emerging, scientists made the interesting promise to the church "not to interfeere with matters of the spirit". Not that modern atheist scientists would care.

------------------
"True = false."
-Godel

The point is, for entropy to deacrease, the situation needs a little something extra that causes things to combine and reproduce and compete... right?

------------------
"True = false."
-Godel

quote:

---

It's just a habit of mine to rectify multiple points of view, because everything is true anyway (see signature).

---

What exactly do you mean by "everything"?

Do you really believe in contradiction (true=false)?

Dranorter:

quote:

---

Why, then, would he break those physical laws? Whatever he does, he does it within those physical laws.

---

Not having evidence is not evidence he doesn't do such things. In fact, read the Bible - God performs plenty of supernatural acts! What about turning water into wine, or raising people from the dead? Those seem quite impossible with our current physical laws! I myself believe that God has done plenty of miracles and supernatural acts, and probably continues to do so today (albeit in a much less noticeable scale).

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

And about my signature, I think that Godel's Theorem disproves itself, and makes a pretty good joke. About everything being true, well, that's just true. (See what I did there? haha...) Anyway, Positivism (as I understand it) is a method of thought in which all ideas are treated equally. I personally beleive that events can have more than one causes, meaning that several underlying patterns can produce the same result; in fact, any result has a practically infinite number of possible patterns; since we cannot say for sure which one is right, we may freely beleive more than one at once. Or something like that.

Truth is created by finding patterns behind things. Or just by observing, I suppose. But patterns can be found behind patterns, too. Thus two or more theories can be combined. My beleif is that the pattern behind certain paranormal phenomenon, or miracles, may be related to the pattern behind evolution.

So, back to evolution. Any comments on my comments?

------------------
"True = false."
-Godel

quote:

---

Yes, but miracles follow certain patterns, too; they can even be govorned by what might be called "physical laws", if you stretch the definition-- any nonrandom act that effects something humanly observable can follow some cause/effect pattern, right?

---

I believe that God exists outside our normal universe, so God need not be limited by our physical laws.

The transformation of water into wine cannot, as far as I know, be caused by anything limited to our own normal universe.

quote:

---

And about my signature, I think that Godel's Theorem disproves itself

---

And if you can prove that mathematically, I'm sure you could get some nice awards .

Are you referring to Godel's incompletemness theorem?

Godel's incompleteness theorem, BTW, does not state whether or not true and false are the same thing or not - if that's what you think, I think you misunderstand the theorem. Godel's theorem states that, within a rigid mathematical/logical system, not all theorems can be proven true or false (note that this doesn't say they have no truth value - only that it cannot be proven).

FYI, if true=false, then everything can be proven. I can prove that Pink Elephants always fly. I can prove just about any statement, be it really true or false.

If you introduce contradictions as being true, then mathematics and logic completely break down, and become useless.

quote:

---

About everything being true, well, that's just true.

---

Pink Elephants always fly.

Is that a true statement?

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited July 20, 2004).]

We have no explanation for this. Duh. Thats why you threw it in my face. So all I can say is, I believe that there is a scientific explanation lurking out there in God's laws. A completely scientific explanation. One that allows atheists to say, "Hey, you see there? It was just a coincidence! Ha!" Because thats how I think God works. I could be wrong, but thats just what I think. Everything has two causes, its physical cause and its spiritual cause, and these causes are really one.

So I should say one more thing, though; I also believe that the universe is perfectly created for each individual in it. So maybe the universe you live in has miracles that can't possibly be explained by physical laws, but I don't think my version does. Let me explain that better: Whatever someone truly, deeply believes is true, because that belief is not of themselves, but comes from a higher source. Unless they believe it doesn't. As Amarba said, more than one systems can apply to a single set of observations, but I think that the difference between those systems is not simply the way a person looks at it, it is WHO is looking at it that matters. Every person has a unique 'flavor' (lats call it that) that applies to everything they see, because the Universe exists according to the observations made on it. The 'flavor' of each person is the essence of them, the thing that makes them them, and it is defined by their surroundings and their surroundings are defined by it.

Anything that a person sees or hears or experiences, or even hears about, is affected by their 'flavor', and changes its nature to conform with their deepest beliefs the instant they hear about it. Even events that occurred deep in the past are thus changed, and therefore the past can be changed through prayer.

Truths do not exist until they are investigated, and yet they will have always existed once they are investigated.

I lost my train of thought. What was my point? Something to do with the water and the wine... Oh yes. All the explanations, including a lack thereof, are true for individuals. You must simply discover which is true for you.

Things that go against 'truth' exist, but they do not exist for people that believe in those 'truths', and those people will never find out about said contradictions, thus no contradiction actually exists.

Unless I'm wrong. If you want some evidence for this 'system' of truth (which is in itself in fact a truth that is not true for everybody, probably), consider this: if said 'system' exists, then one would suppose that you would see oddities caused by it in the way 'truth' is formed by the people who do the actual investigating; scientists and other curious investigative types would find evidence that agrees with their claims, as long as they actually believed those claims. Lets look at a specific scientific endeavor from this point of view.

Take the origin of the moon. Scientists went to get rock samples, and when they did all their tests on them, the rock samples seemed to confirm all of their contradictory theories for why the moon exists. They waited a decade or so (I think) for technology to get better (making new theories in the meantime), then they did their tests again, and found that their more recent theories explained away nicely the flukes earlier, and they finally had a coherent theory on the Moon's origin.

So their original theories, none of which fit together, all appeared to be true. They were later disproven; now they are not true, so some might say that their earlier evidence did not really fit their ideas, it only appeared to. But appearance was all that mattered; the evidence they found fit the theories of the finder. Were ALL the theories true, just for a little while, and now not true? It seems possible to me. I hope I am making sense.

I could easily be wrong, and it would make absolutely no difference when it comes down to physical ramifications.

So: Do pink elephants fly? I really don't care, but maybe someone does, and for them maybe the pink elephants will decide that sprouting wings isn't such a bad idea.

-Dran

ME:"Godel's Theorem disproves itself..."
COBRA:"if you can prove that mathematically..."

No, no, I mean IT IS ALREADY PROVEN, beacause godel's incompleteness theorem is not a proof, but a disproof, and what it disproves is itself. Any contradictory statement produced by a theorum disproves that theorum, proving that the therum contains at least one faulty premise. Godel's theorum ends in contradiction: [translation] "This sentence is false." That sentence is either true or false. If it is false, it is true. If it is true, it is false. False = true, true = false.

COBRA:"Pink Elephants always fly."

In formal logic, this sentence is blatantly true. For some reason, logicians have decided that any false statement implies any statement at all. If something that is false is true, then everything is true, including the statement "evrything is false". Besides, if there WERE pink elephants, who knows if they'd be able to fly. There aren't, so there's no saying.

But that wasn't your point. For you, "Elephants can fly" would have been a slightly better example. The truth is, elephants can't even jump. But, if Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is to be beleived, True = False; and if I'm to be beleived, everything fits into a pattern, or several patterns. Including flying elephants.

"Knowledge to Wisdom: All is truth but lies."

Flying elephants are a deliberate lie, and cannot be integrated as anything else.

"Wisdeom to Knowledge: All are lies, save truth."

Everything I have said may be integrated into THE ultumate truth, but very little, or none, is included per se. Therefore, I am not as true as I could be, and therefore am comparatively wrong.

(Poetry in quotes is from Apaxovio.)

DRAN:"Everything has two causes, its physical cause and its spiritual cause, and these causes are really one."

That's like what I said, with events fitting into multiple patterns. Right now, there is no single "physical cause" to things; science is split down the middle between quantum mechanics and relativity; plus additional fields, like biology and sociology.

"...water and the wine... Oh yes. All the explanations, including a lack thereof, are true..."

Same with pink elephants.

------------------
"True = false."
-Godel

quote:

---

Whatever someone truly, deeply believes is true, because that belief is not of themselves, but comes from a higher source.

---

Whatever. I don't see what coming from a "higher source" has anything to do with truth.

quote:

---

As Amarba said, more than one systems can apply to a single set of observations

---

That does not equate to all systems being true. I do not believe that we exist in a universe controlled by our thoughts. It's fairly obvious to me that no amount of thought or viewpoint change can allow me to perform supernatural acts.

It's also obvious to me that this world is the same for all people. I can ask my sister to view a stereogram, and without giving her any information, she sees the same thing I do! Also, scrolling down the page, my observation is yet again confirmed - who sees the image is irrelevent to its content. We do not determine our universe.

quote:

---

So their original theories, none of which fit together, all appeared to be true.

---

Note that appearing to be true and actually being true are not the same. I do not believe the theories were all true to begin with, and I do not believe that truth depends on whose point of view it is.

If I contradict you, and what you say is true (that our truths are relative, but valid), then simply the act of me believing that truth is not relative means I contradict the idea that truth is relative, and we have a paradox similar to what Orion is talking about. Relative truth, is therefore false.

Orion: I think I get your point - so you are saying that true=false has been disproven? Maybe I misunderstood you?

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

To continue the paradox, "this sentence is false" would be self-disproving. However, that would continue the paradox; so, instead, we should say that any model which includes such a sentence is false, because it is self-contradictory. Godel claimed that any logical language could create such a sentence. I do not refute this claim, but instead say that the sentence is not derived from any model that is self-supporting. A language is not a model, but a tool which describes variouse models. Just because the statement may be derived from the language doesn't mean it may be derived from any model in the language.

That being said, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has the same substance in the logical language that "I'm lying" has in English; that if a joke. A good one, and made all the more humerouse because many logicians still don't get it.

------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
-Douglas Adams, atheist

------------------
"True = false."
-Godel

i hope they aren't the majority,
though sometimes i fear they are...

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

unity is important, but a certian type of unity isn't worth the cost (i.e unity with those who persist claiming to be christian yet celebrate sexual immorality)

i personally find argueing/researching/whatever about evolution to be rather pointless, as it doesn't affect peoples souls and there are the far more foundational gospel things to deal with, however i also understand that for many certian interlectuals it was a stumbling block from them receiving Christ, and on further study it turned out to be their eye opener to open themselves up to the thigns of God and eventually the gospel unto salvation, and not just a bunch of uneducated christian hicks

i believe the mechanism of God creating the earth could have been done many different ways, and as a human i can't fathom that, never know the full mind of God, however i know that God speaks things into being (and still does) and i know the power and creativty of a faith filled spoken by a mere believer.

I believe God could have created the earth over a greater amount of time, i've studied theories of relativity of time , how with the slowdown of the speed of light the relative time of 6000 to 10,000 years would be percieved from the speed of light at the mo, to stretch millions of years..

however i just choose to believe God in his word, that he created it in 6 days with his spoken word.. in this life i will study and be awed by his creation (the way he designed the programming language of genetics and all that) to a simple beauty of a sunset, but i choose to take the bible at face value, even if i am labeled as closed minded, and rejected by the 'wise of the world' because of such backwards beliefs, however i personally won't focus on the evolutionary debate at the cost of focusing on the more important issues of the gospel and the human condition.

one of the biggest reasons i can't accept evolution (or dinosours before man), is i believe that God created the world without death, entropy, suffering. and creation remained in that state until sin and the consequences of sin brought death to man, and to all creation, creation that is groining for the redemption of man.

i have never seen any theory of evolution (not even christianised ones) that take death out of the cycle of evolution..

i could accept (as a theory only) any theory of creation that first aknowledges the specific design of creation, designed with great detail by a designer, a specific designer - our God, the same way (well much more amazing ) as i'd specifically design a computer program. 2) go with the general history as reveled in the bible, and go with the character of God.

here is an example of how i've seen 'evolutionary' models being used in the real world, but by real designers.
the characters in the armies of the movies Lord of the rings used certian software where character movements were 'evolved' from a particular programming model, with particular criteria of what a 'good mutation would do', and then the program would iterate through millions of random times, and pick some examples of 'good' mutations, for the user to select from , then choose to 'evolve' more, it allowed in a short amount of time to create chracters that moved well and naturally, flinching with impacts, moving when an arrow came near etc..
but though it was "evolution", it was anything but really, as it was designed, and based on a preset modal of 'morals' .. well rules of what is good and beneficial etc..

could God have used something similar, - well if he wasn't perfect, and all knowing and all powerful.. such things are useful for us limited capicity humans..
But when God makes something he does it right the first time. i can't imagine him needing, or even using an evolutionary modal of any kind of creation - especially that of creation of humans, which was made in "his own kind", based on a template of himself.. what point would it be to have 'evolved' a body, since God obvisouly isn't an evolved being himself if we are "in his image", and if he did such a thing, when did we recieve a spirit/soul.. do we dare to go on dangerous ground of saying our spirit and soul evolved as well?, or did God say "this monkey looks enough like us now (by evolution) that i'll put in it a spirit (which i made with a completely different process, completed instantly).

I'd rather just take God at his word, and trust Him and his word.
the problem with evolution really isn't so much at the interlectual area, but at its consequences, both the offshoot of social darwinism and such, things that have led the acceptance of abortion, pluralism, relative morality etc. Its actually scary to go through the history of the last century and see the terrible consequences on just a simple 'theory'.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

i agree that we don't need to evangelise about evolution, for most cases it would be the wrong thing to talk to a nonchristian about, we need to rely on the voice of God, the prodding of the Holy Spirit and dicernment for what is the eye opener in communication with each individual, for God knows there needs and the way to their heart.. for some though (and i was surprised how many scientists have become christians mainly because their scientific lives produced results that made them disallusioned in the evolutionary model, and that was the eye opener , the start of the journey.

so i wouldn't be quick to jump on the anti-evolution bandwagon with talking to somebody

but as a relation is developed, i wouldn't hide it as well, though some people may rubbish you, if you are respectful with them as a person, and ask for God's grace and wisdom to guide your words, it should go well, sure alot still will be offended, but that is often the way when something is too close to the bone.

you'd be surprised at how many scientists these days are disallusioned with evolutionary model (even with its modern adjustments.. a LARGE percent.. and some very high and prestigeous ones. it seems the only ones that are almost unanimously holding true are those in the education sector, and also professing athiests.

b.t.w i don't deny microevolution at all. to every lie, deceptions there is ussually a truthful basis (as the devil apeears as angel of light, and even twisted scripture in his temptation of Jesus) microevolution is anothe example of the wonderful designing power of God.
However the theory of evolution has been a very destructive and evil force in the world in the last 100 years or more.

but its usefulness as a tool of the devil is on the way out, as the post modern world is getting sick of it (scientistss because of new understandings) but the general person, because people need something to worship, and evolution creates a void by taking that away, i believe that from now to the end, more people will aknowledge the spiritual realm and creator of some sort (whether we were seeded here by aliens or whatever), though for the general population it won't acknowledge our God, but probably end up worshipping satan and his things sadly (though prob not directly). a tried i see emerging in alot of literature, philosophy is that we were indeed created (or at least seeded) by our God, however our God is actually bad, with a self ego, thinking he is the only God, and the biggest thing outthere, while he himself is just self deluded, and there are bigger God's out there that actually made him.. this might sound rediculous (and its never quite worded that way) but its becoming quite prevalient, with the assumption that God is bad, and we have the moral upper ground on him.. its perfect theory for the rebellious human heart, and goes well with Satans plan to deminish God, and pretend to be God himself.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

i can't accept of any species turning into another.. bible says God created each after their own kind, i believe in genetic differences (and micro evolutionary adaption) within their own kind, but with modern stuff you can quite easily tell what is a different ',
but i can't accept single cell turning into multiple cells, bacteria evoluving into 'animals'.. legless armless fish growing those limbs and evolving into mammals or such thing..

just curious if you can accept evolution in the above scenarios or not?

also what about accepting the whole eve made out of adam thing? do you take that literary? was eve literary made from the rib/flesh of adam? also not taking a 'literal' reading of the bible, would that allow for adam to have parents?, and if so.. how were they genetically different from adam, and was adam the first one that God gave a 'spirit' to?

also i'm curious how christian creation evolutionary models treat death befall the fall and entry of sin, do they accept that death of animals etc occurred before the fall or not?

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

I am with Klumsy here, who put his case very well I thought. I believe some very fundemental stuff happened when Adam and Eve sinned and to use our present 'laws' to explain ANYTHING prior to the fall is very dangerous. Of course, there were many similiarities pre/post the fall, but some fundemental changes including the introduction of 'death' and 'decay' into the universe (can we even imagine what life was like without death and decay, how would we view time?).

I believe in Genesis literaly. If we do not, I think we are in danger of watering down or completly loosing some of the amazing truths presented there. Man is uniquely made in Gods own image with a very special place in creation. God walked and talked with Adam and Eve. God respected our free will to choose. And so on....

I believe man co-existed with dinosaurs and also with the offspring of the mating of fallen angles and human women. I believe this is where many of our ancient legends come from. I believe God whiped out this period (abonimation?) by means of the flood.

Etc...

Rhy Out

PS - I guess a lot of this thread is off topic from the original post, but just wanted to present my views on what has been discussed by others. I have a strong scientific background (but confess to not being uptodate on latest developments) and do believe God has put in place physical laws (which changed at 'the fall'). It is always useful to have scientific knowledge to understand our home and to 'discuss' issues (especialy with non-christians), but do NOT let it water down the TRUTH that we hold to. God is free to break those laws whenever he wishes (he is GOD, the LORD ALMIGHTY, after all). He created a stable universe perfectly suited for the pinacle of his creation - Man. Man's purpose is to reveal God's glory, to be 'like God'. On one side this is very humbling, on the other its the most amazing and highest thing He could bestow upon us. Ooops, even more off topic - got carried away there! Sorry

So basically you believe in option #4 that I posted way up above in this post. To clarify, do believe these "tweaks" were on a small or large scale?

If the former, you have the old problem that Darwin identified: "Where are the transitional forms?" This problem has gotten even worse since Darwin's day because we have tons of more biological data now yet still nothing solid (yes, I've read about the few so-called transitional forms...)

If the latter, well... that would be kind of hard to scientifically prove or disprove since you have whole functioning animals with fully functional DNA. Though it's kind of funny to imagine a parent animal, let's say a dinosaur, looking down on its newly born children and thinking, "What the heck are those puffy-looking things attached to my baby!" (Talking about the whole dinosaurs-to-birds idea)

Also, do you believe that God's DNA programming "experimentation" stopped at Adam, or do you believe it continues to this day?

quote:

---

I believe man co-existed with dinosaurs and also with the offspring of the mating of fallen angles and human women.

---

Coexisting with dinosaurs may have been a possibility, but I personally don't see any reason to believe that mating of humans and angels ever took place, especially since angels aren't physical beings like we are.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

"..the sons of God saw the beautiful women of the human race and took any they wanted as their wives." Genesis 6:2

"In those days, and even afterward, giants (or Nephilim) lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with human women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes mentioned in legends of old." Genesis 6:4

I admit that the reference to 'sons of God' can be open to discussion. Generaly, people say it either refers to angels or to men. However, it specificaly talks about 'human' women - why if they are human men and why use two very different terms for men and women within the same verse? Also, if it were men then all their offspring would be 'heroes' - but if everyone was a hero that would be 'normal' and they would no longer be heroes. And why even mention it if they were men, wouldn't it just be normal (..go forth and multiply)?

For me, it actualy explains an awful lot of stuff and explains many questions. I guess this is were are tales of Dragons (dinosaurs) and heroic knights (Nephilim) etc come from. Its also interesting to note that these heroes are not human!!

Have fun,
Rhy Out

Gods Word is Eternal and He 'will frustrate the wisdom of the wise'. Please don't take me wrong here, I once considered myself 'wise' and became VERY frustrated!! I made the mistake of believing I could understand God, His Creation and His eternal plan. I am a 'created' thing, God is the 'Creator'. I am mortal (atm), He is Eternal. I had a beginning, God always existed. God boggles my mind!

Of course, He also gave us brains and we are to use them. We should question and explore the world around us, but we should never depart from the Truth God has shown us.

But take heart, in heaven 'all things will be made known to us'. But I guess that means we won't know all things whilst we are still on earth! But man, did I try!!

Yours very much in Love,
Rhy Out

[This message has been edited by Rhyolite (edited August 09, 2004).]

you can have quite a complex hirachy of 'inheritted' classes, each sharing common factors, as designed by the designer, often rather cleverly and amazingly so that they work together in the best possible way (though of course no where near amazingly as God could have done).. however one class didn't evolve into another in any manner of sorts, it was completely by design, and when the designer - said - or at least typed.. sure though a programmer takes more time to make a class and has to debug it being a limited human, but God doesn't have bugs as his designs are perfect.

however from an observer of these classes, who had evolutionary assumptions they could anaylse these C++ classes and indeed explain rather convincingly they had evolved.

i believe in word literal creation for other reasons that genesis or etc..
but also mostly because of how the spoken word and faith work etc, even for us humans, in a human level, and also a God level, the tounge has great creative potential and by faith amazing things are 'spoken into being' all the time.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Glenn Miller, a thinker on Christianity, seems to think they're pagan kings.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qgensix.html

Whatever the thinking, they were clearly evil, and were to be wiped by the flood.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Those of you who believe the literal version, do you also subscribe to the idea that the Earth is <10K years old, or believe that the genaeologies(?) didn't mention every single generation?

Interesting article and I fully accept it is open to interpretation. However, the article does not explain (for me) the 'who became heroes mentioned in legends of old'. Why should ALL the offspring of kings who were 'normal' men become 'heroes' and 'legends'? I see these 'heroes' being the source of such pagan 'gods' as Thor etc and as such are 'super human'.

@d000hg

As mentioned, time and many other things may have been viewed very differently before the fall (or the physical 'laws' were different in themselves).

Also, although a literalist, I also accept that some of the 'days' may have been much longer periods. But I still believe that God created man as a unique being without recourse to evolution. For me, being a literalist does not mean I can not recognise poetry! But it does mean I stick to the fundemental Truth presented.

So, I believe there has been less than 10K years since the fall but that the Earth could be much older.

Basicaly, I come from a 'New Age' background where 'anything goes' ie. everyone believes whatever works for them. For me, one of the reasons I became a Christian is because the Bible presents THE TRUTH. I do not always like it or understand it, but I do believe it (hmmm, call it faith if you like!). Don't get me wrong, as mentioned I spent many years trying to explain it with mant different theories, but ultimatly found I just had to accept Gods word.

Rhy Out

Again, I agree. The whole area of the Nephilim is very much open to debate and different views. Perhaps it was a mistake for me to mention it, but I suppose I wanted to show that Gods word does not always fit in with our nice comfy ideas of how things 'should have been'

Although I can not accept a non creationist view which requires the need for evolution (although at one time I did), I can accept that my views on the Nephilim may be wrong.

However, like yourself I think, I generaly believe that accepting that fallen angels mated with women explains more than believing other interpretations. It seems right to me.

Rhy Out

quote:

---

If God simply made every species individually, He wouldn't need to save Himself a bit of work using the 'oo design' principle. In fact in that case it seems God was a little limitied in His creativeness - giving us 90% (or whatever) the same DNA, or all having DNA at all for that matter! Why not have all kinds of stuff instead of just DNA and variations (RNA etc)?

---

quote:

---

Those of you who believe the literal version, do you also subscribe to the idea that the Earth is <10K years old, or believe that the genaeologies(?) didn't mention every single generation?

---

rather than delving into the recesses of my memory and picking out random information and trying to convey it in a limited amount of time during a busy day. read this
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20031101-492.html
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20000601-256.html
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/19990501-233.html

and some more if you are interested

http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/creation.html

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

However, the article does not explain (for me) the 'who became heroes mentioned in legends of old'. Why should ALL the offspring of kings who were 'normal' men become 'heroes' and 'legends'? I see these 'heroes' being the source of such pagan 'gods' as Thor etc and as such are 'super human'.

---

Group fame makes the group superhuman? Doesn't make sense to me. I still say it could go either way, and the agruments are weak in this area.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

2)Therefore Genesis must be true to the word.

3)Even though an animal may change slightly, it is always the same animal.

4)The big bang theory(the most modern Darwinism) is rubbish. What are the chances of all components being at the same place to make an ant let alone a human.

I have been reading this post frequently and just had to air my views.

------------------
If the dream is big enough the facts don't count.-Dexter Yager

quote:

---

4)The big bang theory(the most modern Darwinism) is rubbish. What are the chances of all components being at the same place to make an ant let alone a human.

---

d000ng,
did you get a change to read the links i had posted for you?

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

What is the big bang theory of evolution as opposed to physics?

---

Physics == explanation of how our universe works
Big Bang == theory about how our universe got started

Doesn't take a Doctorate to figure that one out.

quote:

---

And unless you're a doctor or at the very least have a degree in which ever discipline, you are in no position to so flippantly dismiss thousands of man-years of research and thought by the most learned people in that field.

---

Thousands of man hours has lead us to believe that dark matter exists, because we need it to make our mathematical equations work. They have not, however, found out a good explanation as to what dark matter is. Even the doctors are puzzled by the current state of astronomy. Don't fool yourself into thinking they're 100% sure about what they know about the universe.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

------------------
If the dream is big enough the facts don't count.-Dexter Yager

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18132/article_detail.asp

quote:

---

Science was originally founded to prove Gods existance not to prove he doesn't.

---

Science has a long history.

Originally, Science and Religion were very closely tied, due to a common ground: They both try to explain the world, to arrive at the truth. I don't think it was created to prove God's existance, though. Just to attempt to explain things.

Unfortunately, science is often placed on a pedestal as being some sort of lofty practice that cannot be questioned. "How dare you question it, especially if you don't have a doctorate?!" is something I hear all too often.

I hate to break it to people, but appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Even authorities can (and often are) wrong. Science has changed theories millions of times, and chances are the theories will change millions of times in the future. We'll never know with 100% certainty what science is telling us - that's the nature of science.

Science is a tool, not a belief system. It should be treated like a tool, not a belief system.

d000hg: I don't "flippantly" dismiss doctors. I respect their views. I do take all science with a grain of salt, though: As I've said, science is a tool, not a belief system.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physics == explanation of how our universe works
Big Bang == theory about how our universe got started

Doesn't take a Doctorate to figure that one out.

---

quote:

---

Thankyou Klumsy, Gump and CobraA1 for your support. I can't understand why science takes the place of fact. Science was originally founded to prove Gods existance not to prove he doesn't.

---

And if science was created to prove God, why are you all so anti-science. It's being claimed scientists are fundamentally deluded and their most basic principles are false. But since science is about building on things we are sure of, how would building on wrong principles get us the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory (which both give predictions which can be verified to incredible accuracy)? Why would science be able to work ok in these areas but not be a valid source of evidence about how our world formed?

[This message has been edited by d000hg (edited August 18, 2004).]

quote:

---

How would you suggest we get facts in another way other than taking as blind literalism every word of a document written 1000s of years ago, when there was no language to explain the world more scientifically, which was not in any case meant as a document of 'how' things were done but only 'what' was done by God, and 'why'. The Bible never claims to explain God's methods (apart from the taking of Adam's rib) for creation.

---

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

Well the scientific method (being based on testing a throry by making predictions to see if it works, and thus a logical idea) is pretty much the only tangible way of getting 'facts'.

---

Umm, nope. The scientific method is a way of testing a hypothesis, not getting facts. It's entirely possible for another theory to fit them as closely or more closely. Newtonian physics used to be the accepted way of thinking of physics, but theories developed by Einstein fit our observations more closely, especially at high accuracies or at revalistic velocities.

And we're not anti-science. So we question a theory or two, so? Does that really make us anti-science? There's no law that says that our current theories are the correct ones, is there?

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited August 18, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited August 18, 2004).]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04109_gravityPB.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by CobraA1:
Umm, nope. The scientific method is a way of testing a hypothesis, not getting facts. It's entirely possible for another theory to fit them as closely or more closely. Newtonian physics used to be the accepted way of thinking of physics, but theories developed by Einstein fit our observations more closely, especially at high accuracies or at revalistic velocities.

And we're not anti-science. So we question a theory or two, so? Does that really make us anti-science? There's no law that says that our current theories are the correct ones, is there?

---

quote:

---

how do we see the light from those more than 6000 light-years away?

---

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

If God created all the stars on the 4th (?) day for instance, how do we see the light from those more than 6000 light-years away?

---

quote:

---

You sound like you're referring to some kind of relativistiv effect? If so, then you can't just use the idea that at near light speeds time gets distorted to explain an apparent difference in time scales - you have to say what it is that's travelling with respect to what else at what speed. I apologise if I've insulted your knowledge in this area (I've assumed school/popular science level), your post wasn't clear to me. Besides which that's just one example.

---

Dr. Russel Humphreys has come up with an interesting theory on how that may be possible.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

The real problem when it comes to theorizing on cosmology is that we don't know the very basics (boundaries/no boundary, etc.) and more importantly we don't know what points of the process occurred supernaturally or naturally. We're also assuming the physical laws have been constant. It's possible the real method of creation is far stranger than anything we could imagine.

Anyways, I could comment more on some of the statements in this thread but I have carpal tunnel and I really shouldn't be typing so much.

quote:

---

You sound like you're referring to some kind of relativistiv effect? If so, then you can't just use the idea that at near light speeds time gets distorted to explain an apparent difference in time scales - you have to say what it is that's travelling with respect to what else at what speed. I apologise if I've insulted your knowledge in this area (I've assumed school/popular science level), your post wasn't clear to me. Besides which that's just one example.

---

as for my level, that is probably my current level, but my past level has been higher , but i'm kind of dsylexic in quite a few ones, one of them being informationally, i remember principle not examples (maybe from dealign with way too much information) and things i haven't dealt with in a while are very difficult for me to explain etc.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gump:
On a side note some cosmologists have started applying a variable speed of light to fix the expansion problem in the current Big Bang model. They've also reintroduced Einstein's "Fudge Factor" to fix other problems. I haven't seen any creationist models using that.

The real problem when it comes to theorizing on cosmology is that we don't know the very basics (boundaries/no boundary, etc.) and more importantly we don't know what points of the process occurred supernaturally or naturally. We're also assuming the physical laws have been constant. It's possible the real method of creation is far stranger than anything we could imagine.

Anyways, I could comment more on some of the statements in this thread but I have carpal tunnel and I really shouldn't be typing so much.

---