Funny I don’t see the argument. Walking is defined as a continuous series of steps. If you got here and missed a step, then you didn’t actually walk here.
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
Sunbear said:
Might I suggest you read some of Richard Dawkins’ work? I believe he discusses issues like this (don’t know if he mentions this one in particular) in Climbing Mount Improbable (I haven’t actually read it yet, but I’ve read almost all his other books and have read about this one). In other works (and I presume in this one), he basically explains how it may seem that a system is so complicated that it would be impossible to come about through evolution, but then when you look at it one step at a time, it makes a lot more sense.
“Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.”
– Neil Peart, RUSH, “Witch Hunt”
Roksez regurgitated, without apparent understanding:
Standard creationist babble – and completely meaningless.
What “missing link” are you looking for? I’ve seen so many creationists make this statement, and not one of them has actually known what they meant (the more knowledgeable creationists don’t make such a claim).
Evolution requires no leap of faith – just use of the scientific method. Do you understand the scientific method?
As far as “macroevolution” having no “proof” (by which I presume you mean “evidence”), what is your source for that claim? How can you sit there and ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution? Unless, of course, you are ignorant of it (which is what I suspect, considering your use of these silly non-arguments).
“Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.”
– Neil Peart, RUSH, “Witch Hunt”
[q]Funny I don’t see the argument. Walking is defined as a continuous series of steps. If you got here and missed a step, then you didn’t actually walk here.[/q]
‘Missed a step’?
You seem to have an absurd idea of walking and evolution.
If I’m walking towards you and either step twice with the same foot, or stumble, I can be said to have missed a step.
If something changes in a different way than what you consider the ‘logical’ linear way you think it should it can be said it missed a step.
The fact is, though, that in neither case has a step been missed. The order just wasn’t what you expected. There might be intermediate steps that we don’t know about (there probably are, fossilization is a finicky thing), but even if they do not exsist, this means nothing.
‘They couldn’t hit an Elephant from this dist…!’
Last words of General John Sedgwick
I’m going to reply to this without reading anything anybody else has to say on the topic.
I feel the evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.
I see simiarities in the biblical account of creation to the scientific model of how the universe and planets were formed, and how life developed and grew on Earth.
I see, in the biblical account, how a scientifically primitive person might perceive the creation/evolution of the cosmos, as told to them by some higher power/mystical vision or whatever.
I find it amusing that modern, educated people want to literally interpret the bible, considering it was written in various stages over thousands of years, then compiled, then translated, then edited, the added to, then commented on and interpreted by others thousands of years later, then translated again, then re-compiled…you get my point.
Not that I ardently, hardly even passingly, consider myself a christian, but I take the bible metaphorically, when I even take it at all.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“And now I’ll read what others have to say…”
Having now read through the thread, the only thing I can add to my first post is this:
Dex: when you’ve done the seventh impossible thing, tell how the food was, and let me borrow your car.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“They say he has the Heart of Gold.”
<FONT COLOR=“BLUE”>“EAT AT MILLIWAYS”</FONT>
re: “Missing Links”
Of course we don’t have any “missing links.” Once we find a fossil of an animal which is related to two or more modern forms, it is no longer missing. Sheesh.
The fossil record is the weakest line of evidense for common descent. Genetics and other branches of molecular biology are far more important peices to the puzzle. All that the fossil record can tell us is what an ancestral species actually looked like and when it lived. That all life is related is an inescapable conclusion from the observed twin heirarchies of morphology and molecular biology, the fossil record just gives us the clues to recreate specific family histories for living organisms.
The popular press often makes a big deal out of new discoveries that “promise to re-write the story of human evolution.” If anyone were to read the reports these accounts are based upon they would know that all the “re-writing” is about timing and location, not about the fact that Homo sap shares a common ancestor with the other Great Apes.
Occasionally what we have learned about our family history needs to be revised. This is to be expected in an on-going investigation. Expectations and estimates must always be modified to conform with observations and specimens.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.”
I believe in evolution, however some people have problems with it beacuse it’s not really a science. There is almost no predictive value to evolution. Being a molecular biologist I hear a lot of people say things like “this gene probably evolved from that one”. This may be true but ultimately we’ll never know. It can never be proven. (Yeah, I know no theory can ever be proven, but you get my point) Regardless, evolution is a pretty keen model.
It should also be noted that “highly evolved” does not necessitate “complex”. In fact many organisms evolve into simpler creatures. Naked mole rats are considered highly evolved creatures (complex social structure and all that) yet they have actually lost anatomical features that their ancestors had such as functional eyes. Viruses are highly evolved too. So highly evolved that they discard just about every single nucleotide in their genome that doesn’t serve a vital purpose.
roksez is right, the coelocanth hasn’t changed much at all in a huge period of time. Neither has the shark, or E. coli for that matter. That doesn’t mean evolution forgot about it. It just that it hasn’t been exposed to a lot of evolutionary pressure in its niche over that time.
And I thought I was talking about walking.
So, if I walked to work, but caught the bus midway, then ‘logically’ I walked to work.
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
Make up your mind, are you missing a step, or are you stopping walking?
‘Macro-Evolution’ is not separate from ‘micro-evolution’, any more than ‘walking’ is separate from ‘stepping’.
The bus ride is, if we continue the analogy of walking/evolution a time of no change.
You still have to walk off the bus. If a geneline doesn’t change it can start again (assuming it doesn’t die out). If you stop walking, you can start again.
That you haven’t walked all the way from home to work has no bearing on the analogy. Trying to dodge the question like that speaks of a dishonesty.
‘They couldn’t hit an Elephant from this dist…!’
Last words of General John Sedgwick
<hr>
Jack thinks we have common ancestors with apes. Jill thinks the world was created in a few days right as the Bible says. here’s the difference: Jack, if he’s come to his belief through the scientific method, will change his mind if he finds enough verifiable evidence to the contrary. Jill, assuming she’s religious, has faith, therefore her worldview is not so flexible (weak?) as Jack’s–she can ignore new evidence, look for ways to twist some of it to her beliefs, or even think two contradictory things to be true at the same time–but she is never required to change. Jack must, if he’s to be a scientist.
That’s why I have a problem with just saying, “which one do you believe in, creation or evolution?” Putting aside the fact that creation can have many different forms, “believeing” is like apples to oranges.
If God himself came down tomorrow and started demonstarting his clay-to-person approach, real scientists would have to investigate and eventually change their models. No matter how many fossils we dig up or genes we trace, someone with religious faith is by definition stuck.
Personally, I prefer the scientific way. Is it wishy-washy? A bit, but it requires a great deal more work to “proove” something than a religious proof. But there still is room for faith–science is good at saing what, but not why. That’s where I see god.
<hr>
amen 
I was actually just trying to open up the conversation a little, I was accused of being anti-creation on another board.
My true beliefs are that we were the product of a supreme creator, but that the earth is not 5000 yrs old. That is ridiculous.
Try reading the first verse like this:
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. (and everything in it.)
(then, there was at least one global catastrophe, wiping out much of civilization, and many species) And the earth was void, and without form. And God said, let there be light. etc…
I can’t bring myself to believe evolution, or how a consciousness could evolve, but I know the earth is older than 5000 yrs.
Much of the Bible can not be read literally(at least in our English form). In the actual Hebrew, the Bible says “In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the earth.” It is plural. I don’t know how to reconcile that either. Well, now I’m sure I’ve ticked off creationists and evolutionists, so let me have it.
Roksez:
If you are going to throw in a completely un-Biblical “horrible world-destroying disaster” in between the first two verses of Genesis, what is keeping you from simply reading the entire chapter as a parable? I mean, if you want to read things into the text you might as well add “Here’s a nice metaphorical tale to enlighten you” before the first verse…
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.”
Wow! This is heavy stuff… and without trying to be rude, it seems to me that the most qualified people in this forum are DrFidelius, David B, and Tengu.
Let them teach us!
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire
Roksez,
I’m a Christian and I don’t have a problem with "the gods created the heavens and the earth. I’ve heard that before. There are two basic explainations. One is that while there is only one God,you can describe God in the plural sort of like the “royal we”. Another possibility is that references to “gods” are just early references to the trinity, since if God is eternal and unchanging the trinity has been around forever. The pillar of fire or smoke that the Israelites followed from Egypt is sometimes used as a sighting of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. (And just so you know, I tend to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and therfore believe that the earth was created in 6 days. I don’t think this is provable in a scientific sense, and I’m not really interested in trying to deprove evolution.)
roksez:
Absolutely not true. The Hebrew word used can denote either the singular or the plural; considering the context of the entire rest of the Bible, its use there is obviously singular.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
:::snort:::
You want to discuss the different words used for “god” throughout the OT, and how they imply different people.
Not bloody likely.
Then why is there no trinity in Hebrew theology, keeping in mind that they wrote the thing?
Not by the Hebrews who, again, wrote it.
E1skeptic said:
I can’t speak for the others, but I don’t find the above rude. 
“The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth.”
– Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
I would like to thank the Academy…
Wow…I feel so loved!
Hmmm…are we gonna get payed for this?
‘They couldn’t hit an Elephant from this dist…!’
Last words of General John Sedgwick