Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[tw]

[Continued from previous post]
In the meantime, I am not putting words into any one person's mouth. Religious extremists are not Onyxcougar. But some religious peers of Onyxcougar would repeatedly and outrightly subvert other religions to promote the ‘power and glory’ of their righteous religion. Then they are called ‘good’? That other religion called ‘evil’? Again I must quote Pat Robertson on his 700 Club

A man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law.

That promotes hate. That is how one religion must subvert another. It demands religious segregation. How evil as demonstrated in stories from Kahlil Gibran - the great religious poet and story teller of early 1900 Lebanon. Pat Robertson promotes principles contrary to what the United States is base upon and the stories of Gibran. And yet Pat Robertson represents what right wing religious extremists would attempt to do to America. No different than promoting racial hatred. Still Pat Robertson is considered a benchmark of ‘good’ religion?

There is no place for religion in politics, science, education, etc other than as a lesson of history. Why? The act of religion is and must remain a relationship between you and your god. No one else has any right to subvert or deny you the right to practice your religion. Furthermore, no one religion has the right to impose their beliefs on other people.

It is a new principle discovered by the science of law - 1000+ years after the bible was created. Religion has no place in law, astronomy, physics, psychology, mathematics, etc. If that religion is your religion, then it has rules by which you live. If the religion is credible, then it also does not impose itself on others not of that religion. IOW a true Christian would never have tried to force a Christian democracy on an Islamic people. Once we called the Crusades evil examples of a perverted religion. Religion should never tell a Buddhist that he could not drive on the Sabbath. Or that a woman can fly a plane but not drive a car. And yet many religions are so "scrupulous conformity" as to also impose themselves on other. That is simply not acceptable because mankind has learned so much more about religious principles since the bible.

One of "god's laws" that was discovered by more of god's prophets - including the founders of this nation - is the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means a relationship between you and your god unimpeded by any other AND that your religion and its beliefs are not imposed on others. Where in the bible are such principles taught? You can find concepts from which these principles are derived. This science of social order used principles even found in an early science book - such as the bible.

There is no soundbyte response to describe the principles of, relationships to others, and the evil justified by religion. Religion was a good science in its time. Since then, mankind has learned so much and moved on. So much that this posting had to be shortened – extensively.

[wolf]

Not according to the Council of Nicea, I believe. Women just barely got souls, animals lost.

Catholic Version Pope John Paul II now says that animals do have souls. He is infallible, therefore they must.

Protestant Version - No

Islamic View - No, but the author would like them to, based on personal experience.

The Methodists - Succinct, to the point, no.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by wolf

Not according to the Council of Nicea, I believe. Women just barely got souls, animals lost.

Catholic Version Pope John Paul II now says that animals do have souls. He is infallible, therefore they must.

Protestant Version - No

Islamic View - No, but the author would like them to, based on personal experience.

The Methodists - Succinct, to the point, no.

This is one reason why I'm trying to learn hebrew and greek. I want to see what the text says and read it in an exegetical context, so that I can interpret it, instead of somebody interpreting it for me.

And I don't even want to go into catholicism.

[OnyxCougar]

Reality. Name more of god's prophets. Einstein. Newton. Hilbert. Gauss. Franklin. DaVinci. Keppler. Sigmund Freud. These too are god's prophets. They all discovered more of gods laws. They used god's laws from previous prophets to learn more god's laws. They innovated.

Although I'm not sure of your usage of the word "prophet" here, I can agree with the idea here.

Today we hold god's prophets to higher standards because our newest bibles are chock full of more "god's laws" including new tools such as scientific challenge.

Newest bibles? Last I checked there was a group of writings that was agreed upon a couple hundred years or so ago, and that was then termed "the Bible". Full stop. Your statement is based upon the flawed premise that the Bible is a textbook of science, which (for the third time) it's not.

God's prophets must prove their discoveries of what god teaches. As we learn more of god's tools, we even use them to discover which of god's prophets better understood god.

More metaphor based on flawed premise.

Science demonstrates a god that Onyxcougar worships is really nothing more than a pagan. No wonder god must appear in human form. God in that time was the best that man could comprehend.

huh? You lost me here....

Today we know many of those prophets could have easily been Capt Kirk from a starship named Enterprize.

If you're going to use pop culture references, at least spell them correctly. That's Enterprise.

No wonder her god is so pathetically limited as to have will, opinons, and love.

? Please explain how having will, opinions and love is pathetic or limited.

No wonder her god has his chosen people - and president.

I don't believe my God chose George Bush. Bush may think that, some fundies may think that, I don't. So please refrain from linking me to your religio-political overgeneralizations.

All characteristics of gods found in every pagan religion. To worship her pagan god, she needs a science book that says nothing more need be learned. She calls it the bible.

Again (4th time) the bible is not a science book. That's YOUR straw man. Also, the bible doesn't say "nothing more need be learned". So please, stop making these ridiculous statements.

Why do religious extremists deny science such as evolution?

I'm hardly a religious extremist. And evolution as it relates to origion of man is not science. It's guesswork. And it shouldn't be taught in school any more than creationist origins should.

It means their one and only book has been obsoleted.

I disagree. First, the bible (specifically the old testament) is the cornerstone and foundation of Christian, Judaism and Islamic faiths. Within it are timeless concepts that will never be obsolete, as much as you wish they were. Granted, there are some things (like stoning people) that western society considers obsolete now, but the western justice system was based off of Christian laws and punishments within the bible. We don't stone people now, we imprison them. And as we have seen, imprisonment isnt much of a deterrant, is it? But that's another thread entirely....

Parables that were revised as we have learned more of gods laws. We study the bible to better learn our history.

So you agree it's also got history in it. History that has never been DISproven. We may not be able to prove all the history, but what secular history we can verify time and time again agrees with biblical history. So since it hasn't been DISproven, why not believe it all? Again, another thread, but definitely a product of the EvCvID debate.

How things did and did not work. Parables on how man could be so mistaken as to destroy and how man can advance by learning more of gods laws. We learn science to move forward - to better understand god.

Perhaps back in the day that was true. Now, many scientists learn science in an attempt to prove god doesn't exist, and to get other people to doubt god as well. What's the best way to do this? "Prove" that the primary and fundamental statement "In the beginning God created" is wrong, by advancing this UNPROVABLE notion that man evolved from primordial soup. If the Bible is wrong, then you can't trust any of it, and therefore, the foundation of 3 of the world's major religions is GONE. That's why this is such an important issue to Christians, indeed, it should be a major issue to Muslims and Jews. The theory of Evolution as it relates to origin of man is completely opposite of the bible. And you have to take a stand. Do you believe in the word of God or fallible man? Both theories are equally unprovable, and therefore, religious in nature, and should NOT be taught in school.

Notice that this god is truly supreme. Not so limited with human emotions as the bible's god.

Tee, you are the ONLY person who I've ever met (virtually or otherwise) that thinks emotion is a bad thing, or limiting, or pathetic.

Our books are constantly being updated and revised as god's prophets discover more of god's laws.

Again, I'm not so sure of your use of "prophets" here.

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Old French, from Latin propheta, from Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at FOR, BAN
1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specifically often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group

A scientist could be called a prophet, by def. 4, but I would say that "god's prophets" would be more apt to lift god up, so to speak, as opposed to many scientists, who try to tear him down.

Christianity provided principles on which we have developed the sciences of law, civil rights, chemistry, psychology, physics, and other sciences.

Not just Christianity, but all 3 major OT based belief sets.

Bible was but an early attempt. And like all early sciences, it is chock full of errors, myths, fallacies, and misinterpretations.

Depends on the interpretation. Strictly exegetical, no it's not.

For example, the bible was written by humans who did not yet have one important tool (to exist, a fact must have both underlying theory and experimental evidence).

But just a little while ago you said they had facts... stick with one story Mr. Kerry!

Early prophets did what they could with so many limited tools. They used parables - one of the most powerful tools of learning during that time.

Jesus used parables. And it was obvious when he used them because the style of writing changed and he SAID he was using a parable.

God's prophets today use new tools of science - such as what a fact really is - to teach us all more of gods laws.

You need to define what a fact is and figure out if a fact is a fact all the time, or if a fact is a fact only after a certain time. Please be consistant on when a fact is a fact. Until then, I'm ignoring your Kerry-ish argument about facts.

When was the last time interpreters of the bible told us that 8% of all species are gay?

Those who cannot learn (worship the bible) even promote hate of gays.

Firstly, "worship the bible" is not something that people are supposed to be doing. Those who use the bible as a foundation for their faith are supposed to "worship" God (by whatever name each faith might use).

Secondly, I reject that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn. And I do NOT promote hate of gays. I don't promote hate of anyone. That was a completely out of hand and inflammatory statement. And made to ilicit an emotional response. Be careful, Tee.

How do they promote hate and yet call themselves god's choosen people?

Last I checked, gods chosen people are the Israelites. And those are Jews. So you're saying Jews promote hate? huh?

Probably for the same reason that god told George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq.

Prove that.

He too is god's choosen president - if one blindly worships a pagan god.

A nonsense statement.



EDIT: changed exegisial to exegetical. Yeah. I can spell.

[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Although I'm not sure of your usage of the word "prophet" here, I can agree with the idea here.
...
Newest bibles? Last I checked there was a group of writings that was agreed upon a couple hundred years or so ago, and that was then termed "the Bible". Full stop. Your statement is based upon the flawed premise that the Bible is a textbook of science, which (for the third time) it's not.
...
Please explain how having will, opinions and love is pathetic or limited.
...
I don't believe my God chose George Bush. Bush may think that, some fundies may think that, I don't. So please refrain from linking me to your religio-political overgeneralizations.
...
Again (4th time) the bible is not a science book. That's YOUR straw man. Also, the bible doesn't say "nothing more need be learned". So please, stop making these ridiculous statements.
...
I'm hardly a religious extremist. And evolution as it relates to origion of man is not science. It's guesswork. And it shouldn't be taught in school any more than creationist origins should.
...
I disagree. First, the bible (specifically the old testament) is the cornerstone and foundation of Christian, Judaism and Islamic faiths. Within it are timeless concepts that will never be obsolete, as much as you wish they were. Granted, there are some things (like stoning people) that western society considers obsolete now, but the western justice system was based off of Christian laws and punishments within the bible. We don't stone people now, we imprison them. And as we have seen, imprisonment isnt much of a deterrant, is it? But that's another thread entirely....
...
So you agree it's also got history in it. History that has never been DISproven. We may not be able to prove all the history, but what secular history we can verify time and time again agrees with biblical history. So since it hasn't been DISproven, why not believe it all? Again, another thread, but definitely a product of the EvCvID debate.
...
Perhaps back in the day that was true. Now, many scientists learn science in an attempt to prove god doesn't exist, and to get other people to doubt god as well. What's the best way to do this? "Prove" that the primary and fundamental statement "In the beginning God created" is wrong, by advancing this UNPROVABLE notion that man evolved from primordial soup. If the Bible is wrong, then you can't trust any of it, and therefore, the foundation of 3 of the world's major religions is GONE. That's why this is such an important issue to Christians, indeed, it should be a major issue to Muslims and Jews. The theory of Evolution as it relates to origin of man is completely opposite of the bible. And you have to take a stand. Do you believe in the word of God or fallible man? Both theories are equally unprovable, and therefore, religious in nature, and should NOT be taught in school.
...
Tee, you are the ONLY person who I've ever met (virtually or otherwise) that thinks emotion is a bad thing, or limiting, or pathetic.
...
Again, I'm not so sure of your use of "prophets" here.
...
A scientist could be called a prophet, by def. 4, but I would say that "god's prophets" would be more apt to lift god up, so to speak, as opposed to many scientists, who try to tear him down.
...
Jesus used parables. And it was obvious when he used them because the style of writing changed and he SAID he was using a parable.
...
You need to define what a fact is and figure out if a fact is a fact all the time, or if a fact is a fact only after a certain time. Please be consistant on when a fact is a fact. Until then, I'm ignoring your Kerry-ish argument about facts.
...
Firstly, "worship the bible" is not something that people are supposed to be doing. Those who use the bible as a foundation for their faith are supposed to "worship" God (by whatever name each faith might use).

Secondly, I reject that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn. And I do NOT promote hate of gays. I don't promote hate of anyone. That was a completely out of hand and inflammatory statement. And made to ilicit an emotional response. Be careful, Tee.
...
Last I checked, gods chosen people are the Israelites. And those are Jews. So you're saying Jews promote hate? huh?

First, not all whose religion is tightly tied to the bible are religious extremists. Furthermore, just because George Jr is 'god's chosen president' does not mean that it is the belief of all or any devout Christians. In fact George Jr is only god's chosen president because HE believes it. It is HIS religion and HIS religious belief. It demonstrates that George Jr worships a limited and flawed god. A god with gross human deficiencies such as choice and preference - and therefore a limited god - a pagan god.

Prophet - innovator. Someone who discovers more of god's laws. Someone who cannot exist hundreds of years later if only the bible is correct. Someone who advances mankind by adding or correcting principles long since expanded and corrected from the original bible.

It would be illogical to say that a flaw in the bible makes the entire bible flawed. It was a good book in its time just like all science books. We ignore what was wrong, use what works, write a new book, and advance mankind. From the bible have been spawned many new and better books such as geometry and Darwinism.

Despite what your religion may teach, mankind has been correcting, upgradings, and expanding on the bible and other early works; including the Quran. Using principles taught by the nuns with big sticks - they are all inspired words only from god? Nonsense. They are nothing more than men trying to understand a massive concept we call god. Conventional myopic religions fear to understand that mankind has long since moved beyond the original bible. We have learned more and wrote new versions. We have a whole Dewey Decimal system for corrections and updates that man has since made.

IOW the god as taught in those conventional and myopic religions is nothing more than an extension of human wants, need, and emotions. If a god has a chosen person (ie George Jr), then his god is a limited creation with human traits. And that god probably worships his god. That god would be as pagan as the Greek and Roman gods. After all, even those gods chose sides in war and had human emotions such as perference. Those gods had their favored 'good' people. Why did those gods not just eliminate the enemy themselves if those gods were so powerful? Damning logical question that Socrates asked.

A real god is far more infinite. He has no limits such as will, love, or 'choosen people'. Jesus was as much a son of god as is everyone else. Those who think otherwise need a pagan concept to comprehend something that is too infinite. BTW the concept of infinity also did not exist in biblical times.

No problem. Everyone must have some way of dealing with a concept so infinite. Just as long as they don't use beliefs to subvert other's lives. Again, a fundamental principle that made America so great. Religion is nothing more than a relationship between you and your god. It must not affect others against their will.

Bottom line - no matter what your religion says, mine has move long beyond its early and flawed "The Bible" - as we learn more of god's laws. My religion is not stagnant like fundamentalist Christians, conservative Jew, or 'Muslim Brotherhood' Muslim. Unlike those religions, mine promotes tolerance. Mine says god is something to keep learning more about. God does not 'talk' to choosen people. God is what science is about.

I have no problem with those who would worship the same old and flawed books. Religion in a most conservative and conventional sense is to believe something blindly as if nothing better, smarter, improved, or more accurate can exist. Fine. Just don't impose those religious beliefs on my life or my peers - as the previously quoted Pat Robertson would advocate to the destruction of America.

When I say 'worship the bible', it means blindly believe god as defined only in their 'perspective interpretation' of that bible. If they were worshipping god, then they knew the bible is nothing more than an early and flawed attempt to explain god. A limited god is created by 'worshipping the bible' rather than learning of a larger and more infinite god. Biblical word. Flawed. A good early attempt. Something quite limited using parables. If something so limited becomes the total foundation of a religion, then clearly that religion is just another pagan religion. Fundamental christians routinely discuss things that are too limited to be anything more than a pagan god. Damning fact. If a god has love, will, or his 'chosen people', then that god is limited - a classic pagan god with the same human traits (flaws) found in Greek and Roman gods.

Previously defined are examples of what a fact is. For example, to prove a fact, we must have both experimental evidence and underlying theory. Without both, a fact does not exist. This concept did not exist in biblical times as history teaches. A fact does not exist only because a lying president 'felt' there were weapons of mass destruction. Those who believed that 'feeling' to be fact were indeed using only emotion and easily subverted by propaganda. This same process is why many also believe 'their interpretation of the bible'.
[continued in following post]

[tw]

[continued from previous post]
I spent time in christian college libraries. Do they reflect what is taught? For example, there are no calculus books. How will one learn the principles on which mankind advances without an appreciation of calculus. Calculus is not in the bible. Calculus was from a "god's prophet" that biblical scholars must deny - Newton. Therefore calculus is not necessary? Library is empty and devoid of basic science. You tell me. How can America advance - continue to do what made America so great - when we have decided to protect our students from basic scientific principles. We would even deny them basic science such as Darwinism? Therefore we must also deny them another science called fractals and chaos? How many more sciences do we deny them before it is safe enough for them to learn? (Sound like an FCC that fears what we might hear on the radio?)

Do you suspect a great clash of hate in our future? I do. Because so many are being brainwashed by only one book - the bible - rather than learning from the so many books that came afterwords and corrected the bible. They let their emotions make their decisions rather than logic.

I don't call emotion a negative thing, nor limiting, nor pathetic. Emotion is the basis for so much human strength as I personally proved many times on a wrestling mat. I used emotion to be stronger. It was a logical decision. And when in a championship bout, we almost came to blows, my decision was due to a logical mind still controlling my emotions - that were clearly causing quite a commotion on that mat. Emotion also described as the good side of the force. When emotion replaces logic in making decisions - then we have the dark side.

Demonstrated in Star Wars (exclude the magic) is not so difficult to understand. I never said emotion is a bad thing. How emotion is used - if it overrides logic - then the human would be (by your definition) 'evil'. Emotion is something used by and must be always controlled by logic. It is one reason a child takes so long to be a fully functional adult. Emotion takes that long and is that difficult to tame, contain, and carefully utilize. In fact, I am shock that conventional religions don't teach this. But then the most conservative are also not teaching tolerance.

People with limited knowledge make good cannon fodder. They have less potential to be god's prophets. They are groomed to become soldiers (cannon fodder) for another Crusade - or torturers of another Spanish Inquisition. After all, was it not inside this Christian administration (at the highest levels of the George Jr presdiency) that torture was authorized? Of course it was. Remember nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - a fundamenatal lesson from history about what blind religious beliefs can do. The Spanish Inquisition demonstrates the 'dark side' of emotion. Nobody thought religion could be the source of so much 'evil'. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. 'Evil' when the religion is too deeply rooted in emotion. Its called not learning anything beyond one flawed and early science book - the bible.

And yes, the bible was an early science book - because that was how limited science was in those days.

You may reject "that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn." Sure they can learn. But they are not even provided the facts TO learn. Where are basic science and math principles being taught in those christian colleges? What is the most advanced math being taught there? Business math. I asked farther of these future ministers being educated there. They are taught math to balance checkbooks, calculate interest rates, etc. You tell me. This is a college education? We learned this stuff in high school. This is not college material. To learn, first facts and underlying theories of science must be made available. The process of proving facts is not magically inherited - it must be taught. No wonder they believe creationism. They don't even have basic lab sciences to learn how facts are deduced and proven. Therefore they easily confuse emotion with logical thought. Perfect if your life ambition is to be a propagandist. Exactly what military academies don't want which is why they teach engineering - science grounded in reality. I fear christian colleges may be manufacturing cannon fodder for Armageddon - worst case.

Defined in every post are examples of how facts are created AND why those principles did not exist in biblical times. This demonstrates why we will not agree. What you call guesswork is how science continues to advance mankind AND why creationism has long since been discredited along with spontaneous regeneration. It is not guesswork if one better appreciates how facts are created and justified. Fact must be based on fundamental and well proven science theory AND must be demonstrated in experimental evidence - including numbers. These concepts did not exist among the biblical authors nor their targeted audience. They were righting the best science of its time.

Where is basic science taught in fundamentalist religion? It is not. The bible teaches nothing about science principles demonstrated even by Socrates and not widely appreciated until the last 100 years.

[Torrere]

Holy shit. You just wrote three thousand, five hundred and twenty eight words in what was effectively one post. That is twenty thousand, eight hundred and nine characters and somewhere below 85 paragraphs.

Originally Posted by tw

I spent time in christian college libraries. There are no calculus books.

And, yuck. Was that in Alabama?

[Clodfobble]

You never answered my question, OC (although it was awhile back and I think it may have ended up in a different thread...):

No molecules-to-man, ok. But if you agree that speciation happens, is there a reason you can't accept the possibility of apes-to-man (other than the fact that the Bible says they were created at the same time?)

[Beestie]

This is the first time I have viewed this thread and have only one thing to say:


OnyxCougar's fingers have got to be getting tired.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Beestie

This is the first time I have viewed this thread and have only one thing to say:


OnyxCougar's fingers have got to be getting tired.

My fingers are fine, it's my brain that's tired.

I don't really believe I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I do hope I'm making them question the information they've been force fed.

If you do a thorough investigation and you really believe one non-provable theory over another, that's one thing. But research it a little, look at ALL arguements OBJECTIVELY, and then make your decision.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

But research it a little, look at ALL arguements OBJECTIVELY, and then make your decision.

This is one of those topics where you can really only look at things subjectively.

Therein lies the problem.

Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

He's 81, and he was an athiest.

1) It could very well be end of life desperation,

2) he was an athiest which requires just as much of a blind insistance in an absolute (religion) as any xtian, pagan, etc.

Where's the surprise?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by wolf

Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

Reminds me of a few lines from China Doll;
Yesterday I begged you
before I hit the ground
All I leave behind me
is only what I found

William Camden, an antiquary and scholar who lived between 1551 and 1623, wrote in his Remains Concerning Britain:

Betwixt the stirrup and the ground, Mercy I ask'd; mercy I found.

These lines express the Christian concept that even in the split second as you fall dying from your horse, there is still time to repent, ask for mercy, and be given absolution.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You never answered my question, OC (although it was awhile back and I think it may have ended up in a different thread...):

No molecules-to-man, ok. But if you agree that speciation happens, is there a reason you can't accept the possibility of apes-to-man (other than the fact that the Bible says they were created at the same time?)

Sorry, clod, didn't see it.

Yes, even with mutation and speciation, which is observable and experimental (and can thus be proven), I do not believe molecules to man (I'll shorten Molecules to Man theory to evolution in this post) happened. Let's examine some of the principle portions of the theory and counter with creationism (please understand I'm not a scientist, and this is really dumbed down becuase I'm not one of those technical type people. If you want a technical answer go to AiG's website....they have molecular biologists and people who are WAY smarter than me that can answer your question:

1. Evolutionary Theory posits that the "big bang" occured (life from non-life), and that the stars (and sun) were created BEFORE the earth and the planets.

1. Creationists posit that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was made first, with the sun being made after, to separate the night from the day.

2. Evolutionary Theory posits that on the primordial earth, there was a mixture of chemicals and compounds in the waters and air of the earth and somehow (no one quite knows) life spontaneously occured, and the first cells appeared. (Here's HM's "magic".)

2. Creationists believe that God made all the flora and fauna and they were all vegetarians...no animal ate any other. He looked around and "saw that it was good".

3. ET says that one magic cellular organism (the one that spontaneously appeared from non-life) then reproduced itself and then there were two magic life-forms. (How did a cell have all of the components to survive and reproduce if it spontaneously generated from non-life? Reproductive systems are incredibly complex, even asexual reproduction isn't easy... yet somehow this magic cell managed it...)

3. Creationists: See #2

4. So from this really smart cell that spontaneously burst onto the scene able to reproduce itself, ETists say that more cells came about and more and more and then for no reason at all, TWO cells went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. They had cellular sex. Now HOW their "bodies" changed to have a "sperm" and an "egg" type of cell, no one knows. You're just supposed to buy this. No cells have EVER been seen to be able to spontaneously appear. No cells have EVER been seen that can come from an asexual reproduction and suddenly become sexual reproducers.

This form of evolution, "evolving up" means there must be an addition of information. Some how, some way, the cells HAD to learn to divide and/or go from asexual to sexual reproduction.

There has NEVER been any record of information GAIN in any life form scientists have studied. Mutation and Speciation happen, but these involve LOSS or CORRUPTION of EXISTING material.

In other words, all the genetic material is already there to start with, and speciation and mutation LOSE genetic variability as they "adapt" to their environment.

Evolution Theory posits that some how, some way, those single simple cells GAINED information to form multiple celled organisms, and those "evolved" to a HIGHER form of life.

But since what we actually observe is the OPPOSITE of this effect, the evolutionary theory cannot be proven.

Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/origin.asp is a AiG page on cellular origins and primordial soups.

Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...infotheory.asp is an AiG page on Information Theory.

If this doesn't answer your question, Clod, please forgive me, my brain is tired from Tee-Dub's post.

[Clodfobble]

OC, I understand your position on molecules-to-man.

What I'm asking about is just speciation from apes to man, forgetting all the earlier steps for a moment.

In your mind, could a group of apes speciate to the degree that they became indistinguishable from humans?



Edit to add: I'm in no hurry, so feel free to take a break for awhile before getting back to me. I won't be back online to read it until 6AM tomorrow anyway.