Posted on 03/08/2002 7:55:48 AM PST by JediGirl
With all of our so-called knowledge and "enlightenment," we can not specifically explain how the Egyptians created the pyramids with the technology they had at that time. If we can't do this, which we know was created by man, how much harder would it be to think that man is a made being, not some act of random chance? But anyway, you da man!
Yeah, evolution.
So... when you pray for God, to Whom do you pray?
You may want to do a little research before extolling his arguments.
I agree with your support of evolution. :)
Has anyone you know ever said that He didn't? I didn't think so.
Yes, we can. Yes, we did. At this time, there at least three plausible theories, the current favorite being the ramp and pulley method. The pyramids lie only about a mile from the nearest quarry, and the slabs from which the stones were cut are in plain view, as are the paths on which the stones were dragged.
Bad science and lack of knowledge are a terrible combination.
Interesting. From the literature I've read, abiogenesis is linked to evolutionary theory...at least one-way...abiogenesis "just happened" and then evolution took over. What you are saying, then, is that the study of life's ultimate beginnings (abiogenesis) has nothing to do with evolution? And if it does, it is only from abiogenesis-to-evolution, not evolution-to-abiogenesis?
The first life forms could have formed that way,
Supposition #1
or they could have been somehow seeded from space
Supposition #2 - But instead of dealing with the problems facing the evolutionary theories on how life began on earth the problem is shifted "out there".
or they could have been zap-poofed into existence by some divine entity (though the latter case could never be scientifically tested),
And abiogenesis can? Look at the experiments attempting to "recreate" life-from-nothing. Ultimately they stem from an intelligence.
but none of those methods would have any bearing on the validity of evolution -- evolution works on the life forms regardless of how the first life forms got on the planet.
Again, out of curiosity...what is the evidence you refer to that supports the statement of "...evolution works on the life forms regardless..."? What daily kinds of evidences are there?
You mentioned the "old straw man" argument, I would like to point out that many "straw men" exist on the side of evolutionary theory (for example, switching the meaning of evolution to that of natural selection...which Creationists agree with).
I also notice that the "seeds from outer space" idea is putting faith in an "entity" of some form or fashion that is "out there" somewhere, and typically it is this belief that is turned to upon finding the problems of evolutionary theory to difficult to deal with on earth.
At least the Creationists claim to have an eye-witness who recorded the events for them. But then, trusting in the Bible is another issue that even many Christians have a problem with. (As seen by compromising their beliefs because the culture thinks those beliefs arcane, silly, insert adjective here....)
Ummmm, it appears that you still can't.
Okay, here we go.
I'm not being anything. I asked a question that you virtually ignored. Now you are making assumptions as to my person.
Don't!
If you want to know something, ASK! I'll answer it to the best of my abilities.
The mystery as to where God "comes from" will be revealed, in time. Time. It appears that this would be right up your alley. And I can prove that.
In his book "Lucy, The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said: I had no problem with Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same primitive features." On the basis of a hip and knee joint found later, however, Johanson "decided" that Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. He thus deduced Lucy was an ancestor of man, as well as an ancestor of A. africanus (the original Australopithecus). However, there are conflicting reports as to whether Lucy did actually walk upright and there is also evidence that people walked up-rightly before the time of Lucy, disqualifying her as an evolutionary ancestor man (Parker, 1991).
APES UP FROM?, DONALD JOHANSON, "At any rate, modem gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday...., LUCY, p.363 (Seems this denies classic evolution to me, it has to be traceable back to a rock somewhere...)
On November 20, 1986 Donald Johanson, discoverer of the celebrated "Lucy" fossil, lectured on the campus of the University, of Missouri, Kansas City. In the course of the lecture Dr. Johanson showed a slide which suggested that Lucy's knee joint had an angle much like a selected human knee joint. In the discourse which followed the lecture the discoverer admitted that he had found that portion of the fossil 60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24 to 1.86 miles] away. Anatomical similarity appeared to be his basis for placing it with the rest of Lucy's skeletal remains. Her arm/leg length ratio, listed at 83.9%, is admittedly based on an estimated leg length. The left pelvic bone is complete, but "distorted" according to her discoverer. Negative evidence relating to Lucy's claim as a genuine hominid continues to mount. Her chimp-shaped skull of only 400 cc's and many osteological features certainly indicate that walking erect was very unlikely. Possible erect locomotion is indicated by only one angled view of her pelvis, and the pelvis was distorted when found. A long list of ape features are indicated by the skeletal remains.18 This specimen had curved fingers and toes for tree climbing, an ape-type angle of the shoulder socket, a chimp-like iliac blade, an ape ankle bone (talus). The valgus angle of the knees is similar to the orangutan and the spider monkey, a feature which is also found in man. Strong chimp affinities are shown in her hip joint. She may well have walked with flat feet like the chimpanzee.19 According to J. Cherfas her ankle bone (talus) angles backward like a gorilla. This makes it impossible for her to locomote bipedally. Zihnman called our attention to the fact that there is astonishing similarity between Lucy and the pygmy chimps.20
18 - Cherfas, J., 1983. Trees Have Made Man Upright, New Scientist 97:172-178
19 - Ibid., p.174
20 - Zihlman, A., 1984. Pygmy Chimps, People And The Pundits, New Scientist, 104:39-40.
That's a great idea! Thanks for suggesting it. You never can read too much.
But let me also ask you to read a book as well: THE NEW TESTAMENT.
You suggest I read one. I suggest you read one. Fair enough?
I would find it disturbing not because it isn't free speech which it is (and more power to one for saying it) but because of the allusions it makes to our Pledge Of Allegiance which is not religion specific. To an outsider not familiar with the ways of your faith it certainly could appear as though it is a replacement for the United States Pledge Of Allegiance.
Put it in these terms: Take an American Flag with the stars and stripes, keep the stripes but replace the Stars with holy crosses. I am a Christian but I could never support nor worship such a flag as I would consider it a mockery of the U.S. flag, no matter how noble or worthy the intentions of said flag's creator. Similarly, a pledge of faith that uses the same structure (and in some areas the same verbage) as the United States Pledge of Allegiance, in my view makes a mockery of our official pledge of allegiance.
This is like the "One Nation...Indivisble" bru-ha-ha that erupted a few weeks ago, only in reverse. Many compained that it made a mockery of our Pledge by taking God out of it. Well in the opinion of some, which I would be one, this pledge makes a mockery of our pledge by injecting Christianity into it and taking our government out of it.
Under the 1st Ammendment of our great nation, you are entitled to your pledge and I find nothing personally wrong with advocating your faith and celebrating Christianity. I just wish the verbage was more original, tactful, and didn't blur the lines between an official government pledge and a celebration of one specific kind of faith.
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.