Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
But it also means that you are all probably wrong - it's just not nice to say that.
Now how did that happen?
As long as GourmetDan doesn't get to be right. ;-)
Thanks, that might explain why God is irrational one day, sane the next, angry at one moment and happy the next. I never could figure out why anger would be a quality of god if he created himself.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your comments.
"Now here I have nothing to apologize for. Please look at the next statements I make in the post. I state that since ID cannot be held up to scientific scrutiny, it continues to push itself onto the public schools to win proponents. Now... where am incorrect? That is exactly what it's proponents are doing, right? I then continue to talk about the dangers of using "invisible intelligences" to answer natural phenomena (or was that in another post...). So... where am I wrong?"
Here's the problem that *I* have....I'm a product of public schools, and they show an illustration (you know the one) of ape to ape/man to man with no other comparison or explanation of how man started to walk the earth. As a child, I think it's unfair not to be given (1) an alternative explanation; and (2) the offer that evolutuion of man from ape is a theory, and not fact (which is how it's represented).
I remember sitting through my science class watching my teacher explain how we evolved from apes, and even then (before I became a Christian), I just didn't buy it. And to this day, I still don't.
I would agree with you that Intelligent Design (God) shouldn't be taught in *any* form of government schools (whether its science or theology class), yes. Because, most likely, they'd screw it up and give kids a false representation pf God.
Scott
The beginning of the Trinity.....
Bradt,
To your point, how is it possible for *any* complex *living* organism to come to exsistence by way of chaos and randomness....well, it cannot without without an Intelligent Designer (by definition).
I think we're both on the same page here......
The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman World, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.
- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
<< Okay - how about BC and AD? >>
I can't figure out how this has anything to do with the discussion -- and I am sure you could google the answer -- but I'll go ahead and answer it:
Throughout history different cultures have had different calendars, based on various time-lines. The Hebrews, in the Old Testament, for example, would date things from the timing of reigns of kings.
The Romans dated their calendar from the founding of the city of Rome [in our calendar -- 753 b.c.]. To the Romans, the death of Julius Caesar was not in 44 b.c. -- which would be meaningless to them -- but in 709 A.U.C. [anno urbis conditae].
Early Christians used both the Roman calendar and other local methods of counting years, and it was common to use more than one system in the same document. The BC/AD system was developed in Rome, in 525, by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus. He came up with the method while working on his calculations for the dating of Easter.
He calculated the time of the birth of Christ, and based on his belief that the arrival of Christ was the focal point of history, he counted backward from that time and forward from that time. He did NOT include a "Year Zero," as the zero had not yet reached Christian civilization. One b.c. was followed by One a.d.
Exiguus's system gradually replaced the others -- in Christian Europe, that is. It took several hundred years, but with the support of Charlemagne, the new system became dominant by the 800s. Other cultures continued using their own methods. Not long after Exiguus -- the Arabs began a calendar that revolved around the date of Mohammed's flight from Mecca to Yathrib -- 622 in our calendar.
Anno Domini -- a.d. -- was widespread by the ninth century -- but "Before Christ" -- b.c. -- took a lot longer, till about the 15th century. As Christian civilization was pretty much identified with western European civilization -- as western European civilization began to dominate the globe, so did its calendar. It only makes sense in a world of modern communications, travel, and trade to agree on the same calendar world-wide. But of course, other calendars are still in use all over the world.
It is pretty much agreed upon by all scholars today, including conservative Christian ones, that Exiguus's calculations were off by a few years. The birth of Christ had to have occurred between 8 b.c. and 4 b.c.
That's the short answer -- and I still can't figure out what it has to do with anything related to the topic of this thread. But then -- I can't figure out the relevancy, or logic, in most of your posts, anyway.
"Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives. In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs."
If they do get readable DNA, or at least enough proteins that they can examine, it's going to be fascinating to see whether they confirm this or not.
Does anyone here know if there are any particular proteins that we could possibly find that would determine whether they are warm or cold blooded?
Actually... if all animals were "equally" intelligent I would say you have a good point. The problem it, they aren't. Cetaceans,Corvids, Hominids are all pretty darn smart. So the real question is "why is there a wide variety in intelligence in animals to begin with?"
The fact we are at the top, well that is good for us. Now why aren't there any others equally intelligent. Well look at our known history. The farther you go back in time, what do you see? Simpler and simpler intelligence in man, right? Go back lets say, 6000 years what do you find? The dawn of civilization. Now keep on going.... you find evidence of some culture... but all those things you mention aren't around yet... so why is it it just happened "recently"?? (and no... it isn't young earth theory being right, radioisotope dating blows that away).
So mankind is simpler...and simpler...and simpler the farther in time we go back... and... if he is anything like some of the primitive cultures that existed until recently, he doesn't have any of those traits you mention or at least, isn't exhibiting them in a complex fashion, right?.
So what does that suggest to you? I mean... if we take it to its logical conclusion the farther you go back in time, the simpler mankind was?
Now your question about why other animals do not exhibit intelligence like man does, you have to remember we are living in a small frame of time compared to the overall history of Earth. If predictions are correct, our sun has another 5 billion years to go. That is a heck of a lot of time between now and then. If you believe in microevolution... then is it hard to believe that over a long period of time the sum of the changes in a species would enable them to gain intelligence such as we posess? Many hominids seem to be close to having that capacity right? Cetaceans are also pretty darn smart. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to see that could happen. Am I saying it will? Nope... I am simply saying it is all possible.
"...Cetaceans,Corvids, Hominids are all pretty darn smart...."
How is intelligence formed?
Remember that the rabbit's foot wasn't so lucky for the rabbit.
<< 2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible? Apparently via pagan astrologists. >>
<< I think he's asking why seven days, not how did the days of the week get their names. >>
That IS the answer. All other calendar patterns are based on natural patterns. The periodic cycles of the sun = year. The periodic cycles of the moon = month. The seasons are obvious.
But the seven-day week has no basic natural pattern to it. The oldest record of such goes back to ancient Sumeria. Astronomer/astrologers saw seven "planets" and thousands of stars. All the stars appear to circle the earth together in a set pattern, while the seven "planets" [Greek = wanderers] follow their own paths. These seven were: The sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
Of course -- those are our names for these wanderers, from the names of Roman gods. The Greek names preceded the Roman names -- and the Babylonian names preceded the Greek ones. Each "planet" was given the name of a god, and each day of the "week" was named in honor of that god.
The seven-day week originated -- as far as we can tell -- in ancient Sumeria. Of course, those who believe that the creation story in Genesis is the original history would claim that the Babylonians borrowed from that. The evidence points to the fact that the Hebrews borrowed from the Babylonians.
The Hebrews did not carry over the Babylonian names of the days -- but if you look into it, you can see that the Hebrew names for the months are derived from the original Babylonian ones.
How different would these genes have to be to suggest a different creator? 95% 74%? 59%? 18%?
What is the dividing line of differences between species that indicates differing creators?
Except to those who have observed the moon. (Or a woman.)
One of the problems with public schools, especially the science departments, is they are normally teaching things that are rather outdated. I still remember seeing pictures of the old 1910 model of an atom. That is misleading and you are correct.
I remember sitting through my science class watching my teacher explain how we evolved from apes, and even then (before I became a Christian), I just didn't buy it. And to this day, I still don't.
Perhaps the reason why we disagree is because most of what I learned about evolution (and science in general) was not what I learned in public school but on my own and in college. It isn't that I did not "buy it" but I found the public school explanation to be incomplete. So, instead of throwing the whole idea out the window I looked for answers on my own (we had a bunch of crazy science encyclopedias hanging around my house). I also never really focused much on the ape to human part at all. I focused more on plant evolution (hey I grew up on a farm it was what I knew). For me it wasn't that big a deal to grasp simply because plant hybridization was such a norm... that to take that and extend it over a long period of time made complete sense.
I would agree with you that Intelligent Design (God) shouldn't be taught in *any* form of government schools (whether its science or theology class), yes. Because, most likely, they'd screw it up and give kids a false representation pf God.
Now that is funny and so true.
Well...this black monolith comes down from the sky and... oh... sorry that is a movie.
I don't know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.