It was the beginning of symmetric limbs, they figure--pretty cool. A classic "missing link" find.
The Dangers of Evolution
- Thread starter grumpywolfman
- Start date
Assuming that this isn't the first known example of what turns out to be multiple parallel evolutionary steps. Mutations occur constantly. Most impede survival. It seems possible that there will be several examples of paired appendage mutations that moved along the path to extiction until one finally won out (or more than one maybe).
Yeah, as with the eye developing repeatedly, independently--likely so.
Still waiting on the sharks with lasers thing.
Still waiting on the sharks with lasers thing.
OP
grumpywolfman
Black Belt
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2012
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 13
- Thread Starter
- #84
Well yes and no! And, any article that quotes itself as a reference is always a concern.
However this is an emotive article that takes a little truth and it blows out to a totally distorted inaccurate piece of creationist propaganda. Most body snatching was for medical purposes, not to prove or disprove evolution. Certainly Australian Aboriginal remains were in demand in earlier times as they were considered to be the most primitive people known at that time, and with about 40,000 years of continuous habitation without outside influence their culture was unlike most other civilisations on Earth.
Australia like America and many other countries have an unsavoury past when it comes to the treatment of indigenous people. I could not say that no Aboriginals were killed for their bodies as I just don't know the facts. But most Aboriginals were killed by settlers either trying to consolidate their selections or in retaliation for stealing or killing of stock.
All this has very to little to do with Evolution. You have some strange ideas and you make preposterous statements to support your interpretation of your religeon. It just so happens that your interpretation is one that might have had some credibility three or four thousand years ago when superstitious people provided stories to explain the known world. Since then science has progressed and our understanding is not the same as it was in Old Testament times.
Now, I am not making any statements as to the existence or not of any deities but suffice to say that every civilisation has worship different gods since man has been around. Every one of them was convinced that their's was the one true God, although many had multiple Gods to cover all bases. You are no different and are entitled to your beliefs. Why you have to come on MT and post videos created by questionable people and push your barrow I cannot fathom. :asian:
If you want an account of the development of the science of evolutionary biology and the key scientists involved, I recommend The Violinist's Thumb. It includes stories of scientists that had taken wrong turns or engaged in what we may consider today as unethical experiments. The book doesn't not have a religious bias (other than some common cultural exclamations for effect), so it may not be available at your bookstore.
And you really think he has an open mind to read about real science? :sigh:
Last edited:
That requires unnatural selection and Dr. Evil
Or duct tape.
Ah yes! You are wise in the ways of modern science.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Well its true...I found pictures on the internet...and everything on the internet has to be true
TOLD YA!!!!!
None of us are as open minded as we like to think we are, and anytime someone doesn't want to listen to what we think is correct, we label them as being close minded.
I'll say what I said over on the Sodom and Gomorah thread: this burst of posts about evolution, Noah's Arc, Sodom and Gomorah, etc. are really efforts at evangelization. They're not very effective efforts because they never get past argument over the validity of the science or archaological methods used to make the points in the various videos.
Attacking people's belief in evolution in an ineffective way of getting them to listen to what you have to say about Jesus. Continuing to try to prove historicity of the OT is also an ineffective way of getting them to listen to what you have to say about Jesus. Even if you can prove the existence of Ur, Sodom and Gomorah, the great flood, etc. you still don't have a compelling case for Christianity, or even Judaism; you simply proved that the various authors wrote about locals that were known to them when they wrote the naratives that would eventually become the Bible.
Also, much of the evangelization efforts that I have seen start from the premise that man is fallen and doomed to eternal damnation without Jesus, something that early church fathers weren't even in agreement about. Competing views on the nature of man and salvation all had their basis in the Bible as well, and even the Catholic Church, whose doctrine does not require faith in Jesus for salvation, cites scripture for each and every doctrine that they have.
Jesus spoke a very powerful and compelling message. And it was a near universal message. Be loving to your family, friends, neighbors (regardless of their particular faith), and even your enemies, be honest, don't invest your life into the persuit of wealth, and do charitable works and make the world around you a better place. Even the opening of the Gospel of John states that God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. Paul states that God is not willing that any should perish. This is fairly incongruent with the portrayal of God in the OT, incidentally, and completely unrelated to which creation account one holds to.
Doctor Evil is very happy.Well its true...I found pictures on the internet...and everything on the internet has to be true
TOLD YA!!!!!
Id like to think so. Im pretty fantastic. I once tried to get a rock into space by taping a candle to it and throwing it at the sky! I called it, the Arm Strong. ...Imma leave the thread now.
Very well put. In theory, science cannot disprove the existance of God. At most it provides a tested theory as to God's process of creation, assuming you believe in God. I fail to understand how this threatens some peoples' core belief in God. It is easy to see how it threatens somone who's core belief is heavily invested in a particular "story" of faith rather than the faith itself.
Perhaps you should request MT change your screen name to Mr. Fantastic.
:bangahead:
Which brings me back to why I don't believe that there is any danger to the theory of evolution. If someone holds it up and says, "See, there is no god," then they're simply being provocative.
The story of faith... well, that is (pardon the pun) another story. Most Christians I know dislike the use of myth as it relates to Judeo Christian beliefs regarding creation and many of the accounts related in the Pentatuch. But the term myth does not by necessity mean fictitious. Cultural myths are constructed in such a way as to embody the beliefs of a particular cultural group, convey a sense of that group's journey from its initial establishment to its current state (at the time of the telling of the myth at least), and to convey the values of that group. They may be religious in nature, but not automatically; it's only been two hundred and thirty eight years since our nation was founded in 1776 and we already have US mythology. In fact the hard date of 1776 is a part of that mythology.
US mythology includes accounts of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and being of such high moral character, not willing to lie about in spite of the likelihood of serious punishment. So far as I know, this is purely myth. There is no way to verify the story, so its veracity is questionable. However, Washington really was a man of great moral fiber, which the myth communicates very effectively.
Paul Revere's midnight ride is another part of US mythology. In this case, he really did ride to warn of British troops, but he did not shout out, "The British are coming!" as the myth says. He did, however, alert people along his ride from Charlestown to Lexington that the British were indeed coming, which the myth effectively conveys.
We even have WWII mythology, and that war occurred less than a century ago.
So in the case of the Genesis account, it reads that in the beginning there was nothing and that God created everything, all in a narative spanning a chronology of seven days. All attempts to reconcile days with ages (day ages) fall flat, and saying that it was six literal days is counter argued by scientific evidence. But what does it matter? God created the universe from nothing. That is what the myth communicates. Poetic narative was meant to communicate that, not serve as a technical, blow by blow account.
Look at the creation of man. The animals (regardless of order) and plant life all come first. Man comes last. It also says that God "created them male and female," with the account of Adam in the garden being a separate myth. The myth of Adam is the start of the formation of Jewish culture, culminating with the formation of the twelve tribes. Myths tend not to be authored by a single person, but are the culmination of various elements, both historical, apocryphal, and alegorical. Ancient accounts were transmitted orally, with the versions we read being the version that was most popular or most accepted at the time it was written down.
Looking at Jesus, you have in the Gospels four different accounts of a story that was told and retold probably many times oraly over a period of fifty years to a century prior to being commited to pen and paper. Other gospels have also been found, but these are not accepted canon for a variety of reasons. I find the fact that four Gospels that do not fully agree being considered cononical to be a fascinating example of the way myth can be adapted to communicate to different people at different times or in different places, and to emphasize particular values or themes. They were each written to a different audience, with each one emphasizing different elements in order to commuicate to that audience. Luke was written by a Greek Physician and was a letter to another Greek. Mark was written to a Roman audience who valued chain of command and social status. Thus Jesus was portrayed as saying 'follow me' and men would literally drop what they were doing and follow. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience and emphasized things that were important to that audience. John was written in an entirely different style, likely to a mixed audience and definitely to an audience that was under some degree of scruitiny by authorities who were not friendly to Christianity. John also was writing from a prison island, so he wrote in code. His audience knew exactly what he was saying, while anyone else would read his letters and scratch their heads.
My personal feeling is to look at the spirit of what the myth is communicating rather than getting bogged down in the details. Because the details likely changed or were told differently more than a few times prior to the extant versions being handed down.
Well said Daniel. Modern historical rigor is relatively new, with it's focus on chronology and source data. Ancient writings were more accepted for the message they were relaying and there was less focus on such a rigorous analysis of the details in general. Add the aspect of putting long standing oral tradition to pen and it becomes unfair and problematic to try and view these documents as one would a modern historical account. They are products of their age, whenever that might have been, and reflect the trends of that time, not ours.
OP
grumpywolfman
Black Belt
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2012
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 13
- Thread Starter
- #100
As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
