|Creation vs. Evolution||kyvdh|
Jul 25, 2002 4:26 AM
|There has been a good bit of discussion on this forum about the validity or truthfulness of the Bible, both old and new testament. It seems that often the critique of the Bible is based on ones view of how the world began and ones view of creation vs. evolution. Having read some of the posts it becomes obvious that none of us are deep scholars on the issue and often share thoughts of others that are not always completely thought out and if pressed we could not defend adequately ourselves. I do happen to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and have read through the Bible in its entirety several times. Still I am no scholar and will continue to read and study to understand more about the God who made me and who I believe sovereignly and actively is involved in all that goes on here on planet earth as well as the rest of the universe. There are others who are scholars on the subject of creation and evolution. They may not be able to prove their point of view beyond doubt because none of us were there and some of the events claimed by the scriptures have no parallel in modern times. However, I think through their rational research and scientific approach, they can at least show that evolution is not an undisputed fact and that creation is an explanation that is worthy of consideration. It requires an open mind to consider thought that has been ridiculed and suppressed for so long but it is an important topic. Well, enough of my rambling. Here is a website that if you are willing to consider another point of view that starts with the Bible being true and that science and the scientific method can support that truth, may be worth your time and energy. Happy reading.
|re: Creation vs. Evolution||Sintesi|
Jul 25, 2002 5:24 AM
|I think they are "separate spheres." Creationism, whatever it's value is not science; to align it with science is a misuse of the term "science." Likewise, science is not religion either and speaks nothing about morals, ethics, ultimate meanings, etc.... After wading into this battle a few times I've come to believe that this is a false contest over ultimate truth and the result is unwinnable to any satisfying degree whatever your leaning.
I remember reading a survey where I believe 80% of the popluation believe in some version of biblical creationism whereas some 90% of polled scientists believe in some form of evolution. Pesonally, I'll go with the experts.
Jul 25, 2002 6:56 AM
|the problem with creationism isn't that it couldn't be true. It's that the methodology that has proven successful for establishing "facts" is science, and creationism when examined in this light fails by it's criteria. Creationists then cry foul and say well you're just biased that's why you wont except our views rather than answering the critics with scientific "facts" which would support their case. If creationists really believe their hypothesis has merit then step up to the plate and provide the proof, no-one's asking them to do anything that isn't standard practice for any other area that's investigated by scientific methodology. They also need to stop using standard pseudo-science methodology to try to prove their case, anyone familiar with these techniques (whether it's trying to sell the latest wonder diet pill or disprove evolution) can see right through them. Simply, if you want to put forth a legitimate scientific arguement than you have to be ready to prove it via the proven, excepted methodology of science. Otherwise, you're back to square one and accepting creationism on the basis of faith, which is fine for someone personally, but not fine if you're going to teach it as a fact rather than a personal truth.|
Jul 25, 2002 7:09 AM
|For a cogent review of creationists' most common criticisms of evolution, see the latest issue of Scientific American. Only a very uninformed or closed-minded person at this point in time could reject the data supporting evolution. Even the Catholic Church admits that evolution is a well-validated process.|
Jul 25, 2002 7:30 AM
|also focus on the wrong end of things. They try to disprove evolution rather than trying to prove creationism, as if evolution and creationsims are the only two possibilities out there. Maybe aliens showed up 5 billion years ago and seeded the earth with that first organism (or even just amino acids). Assuming evolution is wrong, how do we distinguish between my Alien hypothesis and the creationists hypothesis?|
Jul 25, 2002 12:23 PM
|there is a whole religion based on this! checkitout||ColnagoFE|
Jul 25, 2002 12:26 PM
Jul 25, 2002 8:26 AM
|"the problem with creationism isn't that it couldn't be true"
Of course it could be true. If you accept for a moment, for argument's sake, that a being could create the universe, then that being could very well create a universe in the state of appearing to appear that it resulted from a big bang, with evolution, or whatever.
So, I don't think your argument that "it couldn't be true" acknowledges that a Creator could create exactly what science describes.
|I think we're confused...||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 8:36 AM
|I agree with what your saying. I don't know how my message came across as me saying that a creator creating the universe was an impossibility (maybe a double negative?). I agree, it's a possibility, if we can think it then it's a possibility. The question, as with everything is, is it probable based on the evidence?|
|possible yes. probable NAH! (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jul 25, 2002 10:08 AM
|I agree, sort of, but consider this:||weiwentg|
Jul 25, 2002 5:55 PM
|since the original topic deals with Creation in a Biblical sense, do this. Imagine you are God. you create the universe. it would be quite helpful to you if you made the account of creation in the Bible consistent with the actual process of creation.
just speculating there. I'm not God.
|Really, a biblical literalist?||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 7:24 AM
|I've never read the Bible so please correct me if I misrepresent something, but I have been reading history books concerning early Christianity/Jesus recently. I understand that Jesus was a faith-healer, which means that he probably held the same belief as any other 1st century Jew that illness was the consequence of sin. I believe if you consult your gospels you will find that when he healed the sick, what he would say was that their sins were forgiven and their ailment would be gone. So let me ask you, do you really believe that illness is the result of sin? And why aren't creationists (or biblical literalists) fighting the good battle to prove these misguided doctors with their silly anti-viral/anti-bacterial drugs and surgical interventions are wasting their time? Surely we could even design a study to test this, there are accepted mechanism for absolving sin correct? Lets see if people who are ill get better when they do this. Afterall, Jesus couldn't possibly have been wrong in such a fundamental piece of knowledge as the underlying cause of illness, right?|
Jul 25, 2002 7:53 AM
|You think Jesus believed that all sickness was the result of sin? This is not true in the least. Its a logical fact that some choices have negative consequences and can result in illness. For instance, developing liver disease from years of drinking, is a consequence to a poor choice (sin, if you will). Jesus never taught that sickness as a whole was or is caused sin. If you read any one of the gospels, you'll see that.
Wanye, you keep reading all of these books about God and the bible, and Jesus, but you've never actually read the bible itself? That will become your weakness. Its like trying to understand the writings of Shakespere by reading books written about Shakespere, and never reading an original work for yourself. Its like trying to understand what creme brulee tastes like by reading a recipe book. Why don't you just pick up the bible and thumb through it? Are you afraid of it for some reason? Its a book. Its not going to bite you, or steal your soul or send you to the 9th level of hell or melt off your face or anything. Just read it. Then you can form more intelligent opinions about it.
Jul 25, 2002 8:08 AM
|Good one, Kristin. But it is true that Jews believed in reincarnation and believedthat illness, handicaps, etc. were punishments for misdeeds in previous lives. Reincarnation is still an orthodox Jewish doctrine and is listed in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Jesus apparently never contradicted that notion but also didn't think that illness was inevitably a karmic punishment.
Wayne's hangup is that people who form their beliefs on the basis of their understanding of a religious document will never submit their beliefs to the same rigorous testing and validation that occurs in science, yet will naively try to discredit scientific data because it contradicts a religious belief.
|Sorry for the bad grammar.||Kristin|
Jul 25, 2002 8:08 AM
|And I forgot to mention. I am not personally a literalist. For years and years, 90% of Christians believed in a literal account of creation. But for years and years Christians were not really allowed to think for themselves. There was a huge gulf between Christianity and science. Slowly this is changing. Christians are becoming more open minded and embracing both science and faith. Today, the mix nearer to 30/70 of Christians who accept some form of evolution theory. Personally, I don't hold fast to a litteral creation account. At the same time, there is not enough evidence to substanciate people evolving from apes. DNA research has all but defunct the concept. Additionally, I believe the bibical account that God created man specifically.|
|Please, direct me to the DNA evidence...||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 9:00 AM
|last I heard that was a nice piece of additional info. linking us most closely to chimps (and gorillas further back), and more distantly to the other great apes, as was predicted by the fossil anatomy and their location (Africa) prior to anyone even knowing DNA existed.|
|I don't think that is true.||Sintesi|
Jul 25, 2002 9:15 AM
|"At the same time, there is not enough evidence to substanciate people evolving from apes. DNA research has all but defunct the concept"
Can you back that up? From what I've read, genetic research has only supported and confirmed evolutionary hypotheses. I don't believe I've ever heard that it contradicts it.
|RELAX, From what I've read it was a fundamental piece of||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 8:54 AM
|knowledge about the world to a 1st century Jew that sin caused illness, and Jesus's own words (or at least those attributed to him) convey that he fully held this belief. I didn't say Jesus taught that sin caused illness, why would he? It was apparently common knowledge.
Consuming alchohol is a sin, what about all the wine at mass?
I do intend to read the bible some day (I'll pick one up in hotel one of these days). What will reading the bible do for me, rather than reading a scholars interpretation of certain ideas/or history which includes appropriate scriptural references (often along with quotes from contemporary non-biblical sources as well).
You don't get it. I'm not seeking anything so I won't find anything in the bible. I would only be reading it out of intellectual/historical interest.
I was only trying to make a point that a literal interpretation of the Bible is foolish. Inspired by God or not, anything written by man 2000 years ago is bound to include statements that are wrong no matter how you slice it.
|Answers in Genesis||PaulCL|
Jul 25, 2002 7:39 AM
|That group (your group?) is building a big center out in the farmlands where I ride. I understand that they are building dinosaur statues. Very odd (IMHO). I ride past their 'outpost' on many a Sunday morning. I get some nasty stares. I've always wondered if they are praying for me because they think I'm going to hell, or praying for me to go to hell....|
|re: Creation vs. Evolution||mr_spin|
Jul 25, 2002 7:59 AM
|I think creationism is silly. But then I also think literal interpretation of the bible is idiotic, especially since it always tends to be selective interpretation. Why aren't we stoning people anymore, for instance? And where have all the lepers gone? There seemed to be an awful lot of lepers back then.
Believe what you want, but don't force your beliefs on me or my children. It's not an important topic, either. It's an agenda by people who want to force their religious beliefs on others.
|Do you think that's what I'm doing?||Kristin|
Jul 25, 2002 8:18 AM
|Forcing my beliefs on others? I can say with honestly, that I'm trying to put forth my personal ideas as I continue sort out my faith--which is on going. I hope I don't come accross as having an agenda other than that I want to be informed and want to know the truth about life (now and after I'm toes up).
Mostly I am frustrated at the shocking amount of uninformed and biased knowledge that anti-Christians possess these days.
Jul 25, 2002 8:34 AM
|I don't know you, but based on your posts, I will presume that you aren't. I was speaking generally. I read all the time about school districts fighting to prevent or to include teaching of creationism in the classroom. Teach it to your ("your" in the generic sense) kids in your home or church if you like, but don't try to teach it to mine.
I'm not anti-Christian by the way. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic schools all my life. I'm just tired of people trying to force their religious beliefs on others, whether that be Islam or Christianity.
|Why not teach the theory to everyone||Kristin|
Jul 25, 2002 8:49 AM
|Generalizations often come accross as prejudices towards an entire group. You message appeared to be thrust at all religious people. Anywho...
Regardless of your distain for religion, creationism is no less valid than evolution. I was taught my public schools that evolution was a FACT and was never introduced to any concept of religion. I was not given what I was needed to be a free thinker and therefore, I believe I was taught biased propaganda. First of all, evolution is a far way from being scientifically proovable. Second, who can make an open minded decision without all of the facts? I suggest that if our schools were to be truly not biased, then children should be introduced to all the various concepts/theories that exist. Why should a public school cater only to one flavor of thinking, eh? My kids will be going there too, and I'd rather see them get ALL the information. I can sort the questions out with them at home.
I wonder if I could sue the public schools for not teaching me about the creation theory? That would be a fun case.
|Why not teach the theory to everyone||Jon Billheimer|
Jul 25, 2002 9:04 AM
|Kristin, before you start making such statements as above I'd really suggest that you review the SA article I referenced above. Evolution is about as well documented in the fossil record as anything could be. As well, changes within existing species have been observed and are documented. In my opinion, your claim to being a free thinker might be revised to being an uninformed thinker. If you are going to advise people to inform themselves about Christianity--which is reasonable--then I'd advise you to inform yourself with respect to the scientific evidence buttressing evolution.|
|If you're in a philosophy class...||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 9:14 AM
|or religion class teaching creationism is fine, if you're in a biology class it's BS. You're statement, "creationism is no less valid than evolution" is simply wrong. Based on the criteria and methodology of science it is immensely less valid! Please trust me on this one, you've bought into some bad shit if you think creationism is just as valid a scientific hypothesis to explain the origens and development of life on this planet as evolution (although I guess evolution doesn't really speak about how it all got started). If you want to believe God stepped in and there was a special circumstance regarding the origen of man fine, nobody could possibly prove or disprove that. But to deny the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory is almost guaranteed to get you mocked by posterity the same way the Catholic Church is for trying to maintain that the sun circles the earth when the evidence was otherwise!|
Jul 25, 2002 9:51 AM
|Creationism isn't science, it doesn't meet scientific criteria. One can believe whatever form of creationism one wishes but one can't call it science or teach it as a "science."
If Kristin wants scientific validity she'll have to show scientific evidence for creationism.
P.S. Why would mankind be exempt from evolution? Doesn't seem to make sense since we share the same basic physiology as the rest of the animal kingdom.
Also, if creationism belongs in the classroom, then isn't it fair for evolution to be taught in the church? I mean if we break down the separation of church and state, then it should go both ways. The Govt. should be able to impose evolution on the religious community.
Nah, prolly won't work so hot. Better to keep these two apart. ; )
|Evolution is discussed in my church.||Kristin|
Jul 25, 2002 10:17 AM
|And I don't recall ever saying that creationism was scientifically valid. I merely expressed an opinion that creationism and evolution are both worth exploring. I don't know about your school, but I was taught that evolution in its entirety is fact, period. That's pretty arrogant, and I disagree with it. Go ahead, flame away!|
|Kristin, INFORM yourself! (nm)||Jon Billheimer|
Jul 25, 2002 10:31 AM
|Well if creationism isn't scientifically valid...||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 10:37 AM
|what class in school are you going to teach it in? Creationists certainly seem to want it in the Biology classroom. My high school didn't have a philosophy class or religions class to include it in, if your's did you were fortunate. The fundamentals of evolution are a (scientific)fact, period. Especially anything as basic as the stuff you would get in a school classroom. Could some of it have been wrong, probably, but scientific facts can be wrong that's why science works. All scientific facts are tentative ones, their not dogma, but I'm unaware of any data that questions the fundamental principles of evolutionary theory, especially as understood, since the mid-part of this century when genetic info. was incorporated into. That's not to say that there aren't some really interesting situations were standard Darwinian or post-sythesis evolutionary theory might not be applicable. Mostly in situations where it's hard to tell what constitutes an individual despite the occurance of sexual exchange of genes.|
|Really? Evolution as an alternative to religion?||Sintesi|
Jul 25, 2002 10:40 AM
|That's a nice progressive church. How about all church's? Regardless of denomination. The point was creationism has no place in a science class as an alternative explanation because it's not science. If creationism belongs in schools then evolution belongs in the church. Basically an absurd premise, don't you agree?
Evolution is fact. All the evidence is undeniable. You'd have to throw out entire areas of geology, biology, etc..., to upset the fact of evolution. Ask almost any scientist and they will say it is fact because it demonstrably exists. Now there is contentious debate on the various possible forms of evolution, but almost no one is debating whether or not evolution exists.
BTW, I don't see my comments as flames. What I say is valid and there is nothing personal in my questions.
|Really? Evolution as an alternative to religion?||Jon Billheimer|
Jul 25, 2002 11:20 AM
|From my experience in churches (which is pretty extensive), discussions of evolution are at about the same level as a bunch of medieval scholastics sitting around debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
My brother-in-law, who is an ordained minister as well as a retired science teacher with a Masters degree in physics, couldn't even get the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics right when he tried to use it to defend his creationist/first cause bias.
|because there are other religions out there||mr_spin|
Jul 25, 2002 9:20 AM
|If you make the assumption that everyone uses the bible in their religion, or even subscribes to a religion, then it would be fine to teach a biblical theory in school. I do not make that assumption.
My beliefs are personal and I make the assumption that no one else cares what I believe. If I go to church, I can assume that there are others around me who believe as I do. If I go to public school, I do not make that assumption, and people who do make that assumption scare me.
|creationism is not a theory...it's a belief (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jul 25, 2002 11:24 AM
|expressing an opinion vs. forcing beliefs||DougSloan|
Jul 25, 2002 8:29 AM
|Hey, doesn't everyone get to express their opinions, even those with whom you disagree or even find ludicrous?
In political correct speak these days, "forcing beliefs" is a euphemism for "I disagree with you and want you to shut up."
|oh come on!||mr_spin|
Jul 25, 2002 8:42 AM
|I can walk away and choose not to listen to you if you are standing on the street corner expressing your opinions, but if I am a Hindu and have to sit in class being taught as fact (and possibly being tested on) the literal interpretation of the bible, that is forcing beliefs on others. If I walk into a courtroom where the judge has hung the ten commandments on the wall, that is beyond expressing an opinion. That is forcing his beliefs on everyone who comes before him.
The distinction is quite clear.
|that's a tough one, I admit||DougSloan|
Jul 25, 2002 9:08 AM
|You know, I can't recall any time in all my years of public school when creationism was even mentioned, much less taught. I have never seen the Ten Commandments in a school or a court room, either. Maybe I'm seriously blind, or maybe these things really don't happen all that often. They just make the papers when the 1 in 1,000 occurrences are discovered.
Here is the problem. This country has always had an overwhelming number of largely Christian and Jewish citizens. The Christian founders mention "God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. If not for the clause in the First Amendment stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", there would be no constitutional support for a "separation of church and state" argument whatsoever. Also, don't ignore the latter part of that clause. Courts have extended the First Amendment to require separation, but that's not what the Constitution says. I don't think the founders ever intended that religion would be totally absent from public life.
Now, that's not to say that in present day it's not a good idea to be sensitive to the religious or atheistic beliefs of others. However, I think that often some people are entirely too sensitive about this, almost zealously hateful in their desire to be free from exposure to religion, like they or their children will be corrupted or injured.
This is not an atheistic country. It never was nor was it intended to be. I think part of living here is acknowledging that, and accepting that religion is a part of the foundation of the country, a part of its heritage, and a part of its culture. While Congress cannot tell you what religion you must practice, as was and is done in many countries, you really don't have a right to go through life and never be exposed to religion. You are always free to attempt to amend the Constitution, though.
|that's a tough one, I admit||Jon Billheimer|
Jul 25, 2002 9:37 AM
|Religion belongs in churches, not in schools, especially schools which are supported by taxpayers of many persuasions. Religion definitely DOES NOT belong in science classes, and creationism is pure religious doctrine. For those who are unaware, there is a huge difference between doctrine and scientific theory. Theory, as used in science, is an idea or paradigm which is buttressed by a huge amount of data and/or which can be experiementally replicated. The conversational, idiomatic meaning of the word theory is quite distinct from its scientific meaning. And for those who are unaware, "evolutionary change" has been replicated with simple life forms in the lab.|
|the problem here||ColnagoFE|
Jul 24, 2002 6:45 PM
|Christianity tends to be viewed by Christians as "religion". If you open up the science room to creationism you better also teach ancient myths of other civilizations as well...basically it's a slippery slope from there. How about Satanists? Better include them too. Flat earthers? Better not leave them out. You get the picture.|
Jul 25, 2002 12:46 PM
|The problem is not exposure to religion. There is no getting around that.
The problem has to do with all the different interpretations of religion. If there was one consistent religion, none of this would be a problem. But there isn't. Especially within Christian religions, there is no consistency from church to church, and region to region. There are many sects to Judaism, too.
Let's just look at a few examples:
- Some religions or sects forbid mixing of races.
- Some religions or sects forbid drinking caffeine.
- Some religions or sects forbid drinking alcohol (which always amazed me because didn't Jesus turn water into wine?)
- Some religions or sects forbid dancing
- Some religions or sects forbid eating pork
- Some religions or sects forbid you from working on certain days.
- Some religions or sects forbid you from eating at all on certain days.
- Some religions or sects require women to be covered up in public.
I could go on, but you get the point. Until you can guarantee that your views of what is moral and what is sinful exactly match my views and everyone else's, I think it's best to keep your views to yourself and out of my life. I'll promise to do the same. And without unquestion, keep your views of morality and sin out of the lawmaking process.
We can all agree on the rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond that, to each his own. I'm certain that's how the founding fathers wanted it.
Jul 25, 2002 1:09 PM
|Just because various religions have different practices, that does not make them bad for society or beyond inclusion in public life. You have picked out some aspects of certain denominations and attempted to make that the focus of those denominations. Nothing could be further from reality. While some Baptists may be against dancing, that is far from the gist of their beliefs. Those types of things are miniscule concerns in the big picture.
I will never guarantee that any two people on earth agree on everything. That's nutty. Plus, that is absolutely no justification for asking me to keep my "views to myself." What happen to the other parts of the First Amendment, reproduced in whole here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Looks like I have the right to "free exercise" of my religion as well as freedom of speech. Who is trying to infringe on Constitutional rights here?
We do and must legislate morality every day. If not, would you repeal all laws prohibiting and punishing rape, molesting juveniles, murder, theft, bigamy, sodomy, perjury... you get the point. Many of the laws we have are derived from a religious moral code. It makes me cringe every time I hear someone say "you can't legislate morality." The heck we can't! We'd darn well better.
There is a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. You have no right to live in this country and be totally free from any exposure to religion. If you think so, I'd sure like to see any support for the idea.
I certainly won't keep my views to myself, as you demand. You sure don't have to listen, though.
Jul 25, 2002 1:40 PM
|Laws prohibiting and punishing rape, molesting juveniles, murder, theft, and perjury don't fall under "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."
Obviously, if you murder me, you have deprived me of life. If you perjure yourself, you deprive me of liberty. And so on. These laws may coincide with religious moral code, but they are not exclusive to any one religion or sect, and therefore can be considered independent of religion itself.
Bigamy and sodomy, on the other hand, are totally based on religious moral code. Even the states that have sodomy laws aren't consistent with each other.
My point is that if your religious belifs say that dancing is sinful, then don't dance. But don't tell me I shouldn't dance. And if you file a suit or somehow pass a law that says that no one can dance because you find it sinful, that is religious repression.
I in no way am saying you cannot freely exercise your religion. I am saying that the free exercise of your religion cannot infringe on my right to freely exercise my own religion, which includes the right not to exercise any religion at all. If you don't want to dance, eat pork, or view uncovered women, fine. But don't try to prevent me from doing these things.
|I think we agree more than we want to admit||DougSloan|
Jul 25, 2002 2:04 PM
|I'm a libertarian. I sure as heck believe that no one should be outlawing dancing.
There are some fundamental moral beliefs that have become very common, but were derived from religious moral codes. All I'm saying is that we can legislate morality; it doesn't also follow that we should ban everything anything believes is immoral, but it need not be reduced to the least common denominator, either.
I'm pretty sure all states ban sex with animals. That sure as heck is legislating morality. It's a "victimless" crime, for all we know the animal enjoys it or doesn't care. Anyone against that as "legislating morality", though?
You seem to want to pick out the worst case scenarios, like banning dancing, and apply the absurdity of that to all legal/moral issues. While there may be a continuum, we can and do draw lines at some point.
I agree that you have a right to exercise or not exercise any religion you want. You don't necessarily have the right, though, to live in a society absolutely devoid of any mention of any religion. There is just no authority or reason for that.
|well that's no fun||mr_spin|
Jul 25, 2002 3:28 PM
|We probably do. I chose worst case scenarios because they are the most dramatic and easiest to argue.
Anyway, I'll be in your fair city this weekend for C2K. Hopefully no one will repress me while I am there!
|Well maybe we would should look at laws...||Wayne|
Jul 26, 2002 4:47 AM
|from a rational/logical perspective rather than religious (pretty much the Libertarian view wouldn't you say?). You say, "There are some fundamental moral beliefs that have become very common, but were derived from religious moral codes". I would say they're very common because they're necessary for any group of humans to live together in relative harmony, religion is just what is used to justify them and get people to try to follow them.
Take prostitution, drug use, polygomy, all illegal essentially because of some sort of religious/moral beliefs. Why are they illegal? None of them affect others in a direct manner. Only those who voluntarily engage in those practices are directly affected. You or I will never suffer the possible ill affects of drug use, prostitution or polygamy (although for the life of me I can't figure out what could possibly be wrong with this one) unless we choose to engage in them. Now if a drug user robs me, or operates a motor vehicle and directly places others in imminent danger of loss of life or property then he deserves to be sanctioned by society for robbery or driving while intoxicated but not before he ever does anything wrong just because the use of drugs MIGHT lead to dangerous behavior. Can anybody justify why polygomy is illegal? Seems like to me it's purely forcing the standard Judeo-christian religious morals on others.
Jul 25, 2002 2:27 PM
|What exactly does "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" mean. Who do I send the petition to and how does the government handle it. Exactly what is meant by 'petition' in this context anyhow?
|it means you get to bitch and gripe||DougSloan|
Jul 25, 2002 3:22 PM
|Seriously, though, it means you get to sue the government, if necessary, appear and testify on proposed legislation and administrative rules, form groups of people to lobby (yes, there is a Constitutional right to lobby), and all sort of things like that. In other words, it means many things. Have anything particular in mind?
|that's a tough one, I admit||Steve98501|
Jul 29, 2002 2:52 PM
Doesn't freedom of religion include freedom from religion? It seems that freedom to choose as I wish would include the freedom to choose no religion at all. Exposure is one thing, as it's mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, occurs on currency, etc. I believe the history of our country selected the separation of church and state due to the many colonists who came to America fleeing religious persecution in England and Europe.
Jul 25, 2002 8:32 AM
play with snakes?
avoid women who are menstruating?
recognise that the translated word for seven 'days' in Genesis is periods of time?
is that what you mean by 'literal'?
|Yes, Only the fangless type, I tried, No, Yes. LOL (nm)||Kristin|
Jul 25, 2002 8:36 AM
|getting my two cents in||ishmael|
Jul 25, 2002 12:10 PM
|the part we want to know about, the part that explains how we got here? who we are? and what are purpose is? Is all summed up simply in the Bible. The who we are,where we came from part is summed up in the creation story. There were a couple of days and God did it all and made us out of clay. There, now that thats clear, what are we supposed to do, what is our purpose here? Um, it doesnt really say, what's called the bible is far from a guide to living. Theyre just a collection of stories most of which were written many years after jesus' death and most of which have nothing to do with jesus. So the writters are far from passing on god's word, many never lived in the time of his son and they all have a different angle they seem to be working. Depending on what church you follow the bible consists of different books, some have been omitted. I can see the church now" god's word or cut it, gods word or cut it, hummm?" So believing the bible is "gods word" seems a streach unless you believe god is behind the scenes making sure it is passed down as he intended it. This many Christians seem to believe but I find it too sneaky for me, or too sneaky for my god.
My belief is Jesus was a great guy. Thats it. I dont believe in a god who sends kids from the heavens to do party tricks that I've seen on tv or at fifth grade parties and then vanishes with a scant trace and the ominous- believe or rot in hell. There were great people before jesus, his concepts of sacrifice for others werent new, he really didnt bring anything godly. Great guy though.
The part I like to debate with the religous zelots is the passage where we are supposedly formed from clay "in god's image" Doesnt that make me a god? thats what I believe.
just sharing the good word as I've interpreted it.
|The you have the inevitable translation problems with the Bible||ColnagoFE|
Jul 25, 2002 12:15 PM
|For an eye opener everyone should take a translation class. I remember translating German holocaust poetry and seeing how hard that was trying to keep the same meaning. Can you imagine having to do the same thing from a dead language like Aramaic? And not lose anything in the translation? I don't think it's possible. Probably the biggest argument against the literal interpretation of the Bible is that it's all translated. If you are really into Bible study I suppose you would learn Aramaic and read it in the original.|
|history and anthropology, too||DougSloan|
Jul 25, 2002 1:17 PM
|I agree that you can't really understand a written work unless you also understand the people and events occuring at the time.
There are countless examples of English translations not making much sense, or having a very different meaning in context of the time something was written. I recall something about the phrase "eye of a needle", when it likely meant a low overhead passageway into a walled in city where a camel would be required to remove all its packs (wealth) before fitting through. In other words, it doesn't mean rich people don't get into heaven; rather, that rich men are stripped of wealth and enter heaven just like anyone else. Very different in context.
Any other good examples?
Jul 25, 2002 2:37 PM
|When it comes to textual criticism, characters, letters, and even words in some original, extant manuscripts are unclear. For much of the Bible we don't even have original manuscripts any more.|
|The ever present problem with the word "love" in the bible||Kristin|
Jul 26, 2002 6:29 AM
|There is only one word to describe all types of love in the English language. Typically, we come to understand what sort of love a person is describing through the context in which they are using the word.
It was either ancient Greek or Arameic that contained upto 15 different words to describe love. Since the ancient languages had so many versions of the word for love, authors didn't bother to contextualize it. When the bible was translated into English (the NIV for example) all of those 15 various forms of love were translated to the one word, "love." People without this information will tend to misinterpret the authors indended meaning. And all sorts of false conclusions have been drawn about the nature of "love" discussed in the bible.
However, most evangelical Christians today could pass a pop quiz about three of these ancient words for love: Eros, Agape and Pheleo (sp?). These were the most commonly used in the New Testament.
|The ever present problem with the word "love" in the bible||Jon Billheimer|
Jul 26, 2002 7:00 AM
Ever read "The Four Loves" by C.S. Lewis? You'd probably enjoy it.
|Yes, I enjoy everything by CS Lewis||Kristin|
Jul 26, 2002 7:21 AM
|Except for Paralandria. That kinda messed with my psyche.|
|I think even the earliest gospels...||Wayne|
Jul 26, 2002 4:31 AM
|are in Greek. So you already had a translation from the original Aramaic language (if they ever existed in Aramaic texts at all rather than as a oral tradition alone). One thing I read said the Gospel of Thomas makes a reference to an Aramaic version of the gospel(s). Then of course from Greek to Latin, are there early Greek versions still in existence? And then finally into English.|
|Aliens in a Junk Yard - Evolution Shemvolution||jose_Tex_mex|
Jul 26, 2002 3:15 PM
|Again, I am overwhelmed by the amount of psuedo science being used here to belittle and supress the beliefs of creationism. I see the same old incorrect scientific inferences being made by the same old names and it just makes me wonder what their agenda is.
As for evolution, here's my take as to where it ranks in science.
Aliens come from outer space and land at a deserted junk yard. They see no human life but old vehicles. They see a bus, Boeing 747, car, motorcycle, and a small boat.
The brilliant alien of the bunch realizes the vehicles used for water, land, and air and makes a stunning "scientific" hypothesis. The Alien says - look, this boat creature eventually left the sea to go on land and become a motorcycle. In doing so it shed it's large surface area for two wheels. Later, the creature adopted a more potentially stable eskoskeleton by growing two new wheels and becoming a car. The car grew to become a bus and the bus then sprouted wings in order to take to the sky. Evolution at its best.
Scientific studies show that the materials used in the boat were far less advanced than those used in the plane. The car was far more sophisticated in electronics than the boat and was more stable a land vehicle than the motorcycle. Thus, the Aliens are able to scientifically prove that planes evolved from boats on planet Earth.
This is about as scientific as evolution. It looks great to those who have not got a clue about science. Just line up some skulls and it just looks right.
Evolution and creationism both require faith and/or credulity. One may sound better to you but there's no proof for either.
Again, I am really disappointed in some of the above posters - up to your old games. Try evolving your arguement.
|No offense, I'm trying to figure out if your joking or serious.||Leisure|
Jul 28, 2002 2:53 AM
|Perhaps you're serious and maybe haven't been around the biological side of academia in a while, or maybe you're joking and this will be educational for someone else. There's really no way to argue against evolution anymore on any scientific level.
It's most powerful evidence is found between genetics and the fossil record. Just plucking around with DNA in test-tubes, geneticists have calculated the rate at which DNA-synthesizing RNA makes "mistakes" in DNA replication. These mistakes are actually what allow evolution in the first place; in the context of functional genes, they randomly create changes that can either be selected for or against. Usually they are selected against and thus do not propogate. In the context of non-functional genetic material (of which 90% of the human genome is composed), they simply get carried on to the next generation, having no influence on the survival of the soma.
This is important, because changes to these genes function as a clock by which you can determine evolutionary age: You can compare the DNA between any two organisms and, based on the difference, calculate how far in the past they had common ancestry before evolutionarily diverging. You can then compare that information to carbon-dating the fossil record. Among animals (that have a lot of genes which reduce error in the calculations) you will ALWAYS get agreement. Humans and chimps are about 98% genetically identical, and this agrees with when humans and chimps appear to have diverged according to the fossil record. They've done these tests between hundreds of species, to figure out how long ago plants, animals, and fungi each diverged, different single-cellular organisms, and so on. They've compared all their findings against the fossil record, and they pretty much always get the agreement they expect. Tempt me too much and I'll go look up some of the specific findings.
One cute (but potentially dangerous) finding: they've sampled human DNA (maternal mitochondrial, specifically) all over the world and created a human family super-tree. They know which ethnicities of people separated from others and how long ago. Of course it all agrees with the anthropological accounts. They also both agree that all humans originated somewhere in Africa. More than that, by this same principle (called Convergence) they can say with certainty that the entire human genome can be traced back to one or a few mother(s), evolutionary "Eve"s, if you will. Maybe religion and science can learn to co-exist.
|Me being facetious...||jose_Tex_mex|
Jul 28, 2002 9:39 AM
|I am ofcourse being facetious. However, I think the example is valid and the parallels similar. Both were based upon visual observation. Evolution is inferred by DNA evidence in the same way my advanced materials inferred a higher state in the vehicles. Could either be a case of scientists finding what they wanted to find? Will subsequent scientists come to differing conclusions?
I could continue on with this example paralleling your scientific evidence. For example, the Aliens travel the world over and find family markers on cars such as Ford, Mercedes, and VW. They are able to trace the roots of these vehicles back to the mother car - the Model T! One might say - man "created" these cars - the Aliens are just confusing creation with evolution. Hmmm.
Yeah, it's a trivial example. However, how far off is it?
My point is that both are interesting theories. However, none are knowable or provable. Evolution might provide a comfort zone for biologists and creationism for the religious. Neither should take the "I'm right - Your wrong" attitude. If you have faith in science, great. Realize it for what it is.
I am not even sure if creationism should be compared to evolution. Doesn't creationism imply the start - to create and not just morph? Doesn't evolution speak more to what happens after creation - species changing?
If the arguement is just about species changing I would agree. There's no similitude in Bioligy - all is in a constant state of change.
As for religion and science co-existing, they do for me. Are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive? Is evolution devoid of God?
Finally, on a more contra-positive flavor, if we are the top of the evolutionary chain, then there's definitely something wrong with the theory.
|Me being facetious...||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2002 8:54 AM
|Your argument is interesting, but for the sake of intellectual satisfaction I'll point out that at least evolution theory described a mechanism for the evolutionary changes; your junk yard theory does not.
I think many who argue for evolution are really attempting to argue against religion. The evolution argument is merely a method for doing so. They believe that proving evolution must disprove the Bible, and therefor religion itself.
|I think I will have to think this one through some more...||jose_Tex_mex|
Jul 29, 2002 9:52 AM
|I agree - too many people use evolution to argue against religion. In my opinion, this is a waste of science.
As for the junk yard theory, I remember hearing an analogy like it some time ago. I will really have to sit down and do a better job with the analogies. However, it really was off the top of my head.
Finally, what is the mechanism for change as per evolution? I'll have to factor this in.
Jul 29, 2002 10:21 AM
|The mechanism is mutation. Changes to DNA when it replicates. To some extent, too, the new combinations from male and female genes.
Unless boats and motorcycles start replicating themselves, that will be a tough analogy to work through.
Jul 29, 2002 10:38 AM
|It's not just the mutation but the mutation giving a survival benefit vis a vis the norm. In other words a mutation that weakened the species would prevent evolution however a mutation that allowed for a better adaptation to the environment would allow the "mutant" a better chance to survive & reproduce the mutation than one without the mutation.
|Sexual replication, please, the plane has evolved from that...||jose_Tex_mex|
Jul 29, 2002 2:10 PM
|If you are wondering how the vehicles replicated, one of the Aliens had an interesting theory. You see, rather than take the time necessary to find a mate and create a pair bond, the much higher evolved creature (the plane) determined its time (in replication) would be much better off studying quantum physics. The plane was able to reproduce using a twinning technique similar to that used by light to create identical particles. Sexual reproduction was deemed something for the animals.
This theory was validated as there were many planes that looked exactly the same: size, shape, color, stickers, etc...
Also, remember it is not a requirement that the vehicles actually replicate. I just have to have enough evidence to infer replication took place. I could show old motorcycles (grandpa), mopeds and mini-bikes (babies), teenagers (sport bikes), fathers (Harley Davidson), and mothers (Gold Wings). From this I could infer a family structure and that replication was taking place. With that thought in mind the Aliens would come up with an excellent idea as to how replication occurred.
Jul 29, 2002 2:22 PM
|You've done more to support a creation theory, though. If there is no (reasonable) method of replication, then someone/something must have created them, even if that creator is another machine.
You have to at least grant the evolutionists that they reasonably describe a method for replication and change, even if the odds of pure chance of mutations causing the complex and successful organisms that exist are extremely remote.
|Actually the mechanism of change...||Wayne|
Jul 30, 2002 6:19 AM
|is "differential reproductive success", mutation and sexual reproduction merely provide the necessary variety in a population so that "natural selection" can occur. This is one of the more often misunderstood aspects of evolutionary theory. All that matters is that you leave behind more offspring so that your genes are represented to greater extent in the next generation!
Also the concept of "progressive" evolution, or working toward something is a common misconception. You see people who really don't understand evolution saying humans are the pinnacle of evolution. That's stupid. We have one aspect of physiology that may have achieved a degree of developement never before seen, our brain. This allows us to have rational, complex thoughts which leads to a degree self-consciousness heretofor never seen in the animal world. Interestingly our closest relatives (chimps and gorillas) also show a degree of self-awareness and ability for abstract thought that is a step above any other species. For now, our brain (and the adaptation it allows, i.e. culture) has allowed us to become the dominant large animal on the planet. If we nuke ourselves into extinction tomorrow clearly our brains will have turned out to be a "bad" trait in the long run. Evolution doesn't work past the next generation, no one is guiding it, so it is a here and now thing. If conditions change, the traits that lead to survival and differential reproductive success will change, and what was once beneficial can become a detriment (size is the most obvious example of this).
Jul 29, 2002 11:22 AM
|The entire concept of evolution began with no evidence, only a concept. And I might add, a concept that has been formulated and embraced a group of by men who mostly have sought reasons to NOT believe in the existence of any god. This is extreme bias and, in my opinion, very bad form.
When studying psychology, I was taught to never generate a study as a means to proove a theory, but rather to use scientific studies as a tool for discovering new truths. You don't start with a preconception. You start with a question. There are far too many scientists out to proove their ideas. If you go looking for the answers you want to hear, what are you accomplishing? The research becomes tainted. And I've grown rather tired of the collective scientific ego of a group of men who want to think themselves higher still on the evolutionary ladder than the foolish saps who don't know how to read their papers. We proove ourselves (humans) to be so very foolish at every turn. How can we think we understand anything--even scientists? Goodness, our perspective is nearly as limited as it could be. If there is a god, he is looking upon all the people fighing over this as if we are silly children arguing over what colour crayon is better for colouring a tree.
|What are you talking about?||Wayne|
Jul 30, 2002 6:01 AM
|"The entire concept of evolution began with no evidence, only a concept."
The entire content of Darwin's Origin of Species is a detailed, rational, logical arguement to justify evolution as a theory to explain the variety of life on earth and how it has changed over time. Darwin was writing well before there was any concept of genes but he like any good English Gentry farmer knew about "descent with modification" via animal husbandry (and pigeon breeding). There are other lines of argument he uses as well. Darwin formulated his arguements over about 30 years and was reluctant to publish because of the implications to Biblical literalism and feared social backlash. He was forced to publish because Alfred Wallace working in southeast Asia came up with a very similar theory and sent it to a mutual friend to proof. Faced with being superceded Darwin published at the urging of his friends.
"And I might add, a concept that has been formulated and embraced a group of by men who mostly have sought reasons to NOT believe in the existence of any god." That is simply not true, Darwin himself believed in god. I suspect if you go back and read the history surrounding the acceptance of evolutionary theory in biology you will find that most of the "converts" believed in God and continued to do so even after accepting evolutionary theory. T.H. Huxley became the major promoter of evolutionary theory (Darwin was basically a non-confrontational guy who just wanted to be left alone). Huxley coined the term agnosticism or at least was the guy who promoted it as a philosophy. Probably to the detriment of posterity, ever since people have been viewing evolution vs. religion as diametrically opposed philosophies. They are not! Evolution doesn't even rule out the possibility of a creator who started everything (this is what Darwin believed), it merely says the contention that the animal world as we know it, was created in it's present form a relatively short time ago and species have remained unmodified through time doesn't jive with the fossil (and now genetic) evidence.
|Big up to Wayne! Well said.||Sintesi|
Jul 30, 2002 8:01 AM
|Most Christians have little to fear from science unless they insist on being biblical literalists. This debate between science and religion is often falsely adversarial and, boy, it just doesn't ever seem to run out of gas. Stephen Gould (God rest his soul), always proposed the "separate spheres" rationale which simply means that both concepts have little to do with the other and only superficially intersect. However one wants to paint the historical record, science is merely descriptive of the universe as we now know it. Science has no ethics (other than adhering to its procedural standards), morals, nor does it pretend to KNOW all. It has nothing to do with that.|
|But here on this forum the whole topic of evolution was brought||Kristin|
Jul 30, 2002 8:45 AM
|up as a point to argue against the validity of religion. The whole feel of this evolutionary discussion has been seemingly to oppose the idea of religous belief. (I hate that word, religion, by the way.) Now you all are going to argue that God and science co-exists. Geez, you make me dizzy.
As a Christian, I've had it stuffed in my face over and over again, by "scientists" who think Christians are some feable-minded beings who can't rub two brain cells together. Nearly every discussion I've had on the subject of evolution has possessed at least a little (if not tons) of anti-religious slant. Personally, I don't fear science. I enjoy science. I don't believe that science does disprove Christianity. But many of you are trying to say that ti does, are you not??
|Anyone who is using evolution...||Wayne|
Jul 30, 2002 9:04 AM
|as an arguement against the basic tenets of Christianity one, doesn't understand evolutionary theory, and two, doesn't understand Christianity! Evolutionary theory is a result of scientific investigation into the nature of life on this planet over time. Christianity is a religion and deals with concepts such as soul, sin, redemption, eternal salvation, etc. which science could never speak to because these are not physical phenomena that could be observed by our senses or rationalized. They are concepts that must be understood on the basis of faith. Never should the two cross paths!
I don't think most scientists even those that work directly in evolutionary fields think Christians are feable-minded (I suspect these scientists even include a fair number of christians), but I doubt too many have respect for Creationists who try to use a religious belief to discredit science and put forth a theory that doesn't even stand up to the most rudimentary investigation. That in no way discredits the basic tenets of Christianity. This is basically the stance the Catholic Church has taken, they realized to resist scientific facts based on religious dogma makes you look foolish in the long run (i.e. Magellen or Galileo). But they are "safe" how could science ever investigate that Jesus was the son of God and died on the cross to forgive mankinds sins? That's something you have to take on faith and is beyond the realm of science to even attempt to investigate.
Jul 30, 2002 10:12 AM
|Can Christianity and evolution co-exist? I have my doubts about this. You see, evolution claims to disprove one of the basic tenants of Christianity. The fact the God created man in his image. As I understand things, evolutionary theory states that man slowly evolved from a single cell organism, into what we are today. It would also exert that humans are basically on the same level as other animals. But the Bible--which most people here assert is full of holes, but that I believe--claims that God created man separately from other animals, and that God had a special relationship to man that he did not have with animals. Its the whole basis for why Jesus would have died to save mankind from their separation from God. If this is true, then there is no more reason for me to follow my God. I should completely reject Christianity. The way things are currently defined, I can not see anyway to reconcile the faith in Christ with evolution. What are your thoughts about this?
If A is true
And B contradicts A
Then B is false
|One theory.....||Len J|
Jul 30, 2002 10:22 AM
|that allows them to co-exist.
Your logic fails because you assume that God operates on the same time plane as we do, i.e. that he created manat the time & in the sequence that the bible simply lays it out. If God instead could see all things at all times then he could have created/started the chain of event that resulted in man, while simotaneously knowing/seeing the result. A God powerful enough to create the Universe might do things in a way that was a little more complex than what could be captured by early mans story telling & comprehension capability. The Creation as told in the bible could be a metaphor.
|macro and micro evolution||DougSloan|
Jul 30, 2002 11:36 AM
|Another theory is that evolution exists on a smaller scale, such as a pony evolving into a horse, that sort of thing, but that there is little if no evidence to extend evolutionary theory to one-celled organisms evolving into higher beings. That might bridge the gap between pure evolutionists and literal Bible followers.
|macro and micro evolution||Leisure|
Aug 1, 2002 1:22 AM
|Actually there's plenty of evidence for single cellular organisms evolving into multicellulars. It's just that the process is huge, it's not a one-stroke explanation that happens all of a sudden. It begins with single cellular organisms that have replicated (thus essentially genetically identical), that proceed to aggragate into colonies for mutually beneficial gain. There are probably plenty of examples, but the one that I see referenced the most in textbooks is this one where the cells attach into a hollow ball. It just floats around and picks up food. The cells in the back actually undergo low-level differentiation, getting larger and growing larger cilia to push the ball around, and the cells in the front leave a hole for stuff to float in, kind of like a super-primitive mouth. Really cute. From there you get larger and larger colonies, increased cellular differention, etc. These organisms hover in the gray area of biology, not easily defined as single cellular or multicellular. You can argue it either way, which is why I guess I think they're cute. It also doesn't happen all at once, which is partially in response to your post immediately previous to this; like everything else in evolution, it is a painfully slow, gradual process, and until you've seen every little tree along the way, the forest doesn't make much sense.
Personally, I don't think there's any bridging the gap between literal Bible people and science. There's no way to bridge all the scientific evidence behind every facet of Creation and somehow make it jive with God creating everything in a few days. At some point you're going to give in to Biblical stories becoming metaphorical representations to make things work. Sorry Biblical literalists, I respect you like everyone else, but we'll just have to disagree on this one. I consider myself to be a spiritual and moral person that happens to believe in "God", but I also believe God has no reason not to invoke Creation without some sense of reason and formula, of which science is a part.
|ZAP! a Man. ZAP! a Woman.||Sintesi|
Jul 30, 2002 11:44 AM
|There are truths and there are great truths. I think the literalism that comes from this ancient book ties people up. If you look at it from a mythological perspective, one that sheds light on morals, values, spirituality, etc., then I think the two (evolution and the Bible)can peacefully coexist. Think about it: the "Tree of Knowledge," the "Garden of Eden," the "devil" is a talking snake. Doesn't this seem too too fantastical? A little weird and remote? Maybe this is really a story about loyalty and devotion and the wages of corruption and not so much about a literal man and a literal woman literally eating bad apples. It's like Aesop's fables. One doesn't believe that a tortoise and a hare were actually racing to understand the actual meaning of the story. Is it necessary for Adam and Eve to have existed for you to love and be loved by God? I guess that's up to you but for me not necessary.
I suggest to you that the bible should be read for the meanings in the stories and not the stories themselves.
|Why not just believe that...||Wayne|
Jul 31, 2002 8:25 AM
|hominids (I think they might be called hominines now) were evolving along just like every other animal on the planet we reached a point in our evolutionary history and BANG God intervened and gave us a soul and our self-conscious awareness. Everything afterwards was a human not just a hominid.
If you look at the archaeological/fossil record clearly something changed around 100,000 years ago. Prior to that we were probably just a really smart bipedal ape. I and I think most anthropologists would argue some population crossed a rubicon and aquired the symbolic/abstract thought capabilities which allow language in it's fully modern form. Or you could just choose to believe God stepped in and gave man a soul and mind. Whatever else you believe we're a pretty unique animal when it comes to our cognitive abilities. Chimps/gorillas with years and years of intense training only aquire the abstract thought/language abilities of a 3 or 4 year old human child. And the human child has aquired those abilities without even trying.
|Possible? Sure. But its a stretch.||Kristin|
Jul 31, 2002 11:41 AM
|But then, why just some? Why didn't EVERY living creature get a soul and a conscience? What does that say about God? He picks and chooses who will get to live on and who won't? Its an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how much evidence you could find to support it. Besides perhaps this change that occured. By the way, Wayne, I am curious what you do for a living. You seem to understand this so thoroughly.
Len's response (and Dougs after) have really helped me in processing the whole mess going on inside my head. This little set of discussions we've had have challenged me plenty. I'm going to respond to his post, but I want to take some time and write out my thoughts carefully.
|I'm a graduate student...||Wayne|
Jul 31, 2002 12:13 PM
|working on a PhD in a program called Biomechanics and Movement Science. I study the muscle fatigue associated with electrical stimulation of muscle (think Christopher Reeves walking again type stuff). So basically I'm a muscle physiologist focusing on the effects of electrical stimulation on muscle and muscle fatigue. I have a Master's in Physical Therapy but I went straight on to the PhD, so I have limited clinical experience. My undergrad degree was in Anthropology and I did two years of masters work in biological anthropology (studying fossils and human evolution) prior to deciding that was going no where and switched to getting a physical therapy degree. So I'm basically a professional student which makes me overeducated and poor but with alot of flexible time to train and race bikes.|
|That's very cool||Kristin|
Jul 31, 2002 1:05 PM
|I don't know how you do it, but I admire you. Thats a very cool field to be in. Once upon a time, I wanted to get into the prosthetic's field. I rank well for a career in design. My mom's grandfather won the patent race for the air-cooled engine, and my fathers side is plenty innovative as well. I had a strong desire to work with disabled athletes. But I'd need a degree in Biomechanics and probably another in engineering. I couldn't possibly afford this and eat too. Plus there's another disadvantage. I'm not sure why I did this; but I managed to aviod ever taking a biology class in school. I'd have to go back to high school just to get into college as a science major.|
Jul 30, 2002 8:25 AM
|Kristin I urge you to just read the Origin of Species if you think evolution was originally a concept with no evidence (I'm planning on reading the Bible at your bequest).
Also, if you understand evolutionary theory then you would realize there is no "evolutionary ladder", a human is no higher or more evolved than a roach. We're just a more recently evolved species with some rather unique physiological traits.
|Yes, I'll read It||Kristin|
Jul 30, 2002 8:53 AM
|Though I can't promise when. That's actually on my reading list, along with several classics, the Aporcrapha, and I'd like to browse the Quaran sometime, just to see whats in there. But time is finite, no? In this age of knowledge one really must chose what they will know and, by consequence, what they will not. (Ugh, I'm still a Notes Admin--pays the bills--and in the process of becoming a professional photographer. I need about 12 more hours in each day. I'd quit sleeping, but that would just make me grumpier.)|| |