Page 5 of 14

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:03 pm
by Ishtar
Digit wrote:No you don't have to explain it Ish, but if you don't it's going to be dull evening as we'll have nothing to argue about! :lol:
Well, Dig, I'm sure you could equally as well as me quickly jot something down on the back of a cigarette pack that would rival Darwin's theory.

I mean...what else do you have to do all day in the Welsh hills! :lol:

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:44 pm
by Beagle
Hi Ishtar. I was unable to get on my computer any sooner. It's about 4:41 PM here and I realize that you're 5 hours ahead of me.

I just want to ask a question about this statement:
I also think it's unlikely that we're descended from apes or any other common ancestor.
I understand why creationists feel this way, it's their religion. Please tell me where you think we came from.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:58 pm
by Digit
Ish dodged that one earlier Beag. 8)

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:04 pm
by Beagle
Hopefully she won't. I'm just curious. I've had miserable luck in attempting to convince folks here about the science of various things, and I'm not about to try that here. :wink:

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:05 pm
by kbs2244
As one of the best villains Hollywood has come up with lately said:
“I find your lack of Faith disturbing.”

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:09 pm
by Beagle
Is that for me KB? Help me out here, as I don't understand what you mean.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:26 pm
by Beagle
Well, I was afraid that I was getting in the forum too late. It's almost 10:30 PM in the UK. So, I'll just post a reference from Wiki and try to do better tomorrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Since the time of Carolus Linnaeus, scientists have considered the great apes to be the closest relatives of human beings, based on morphological similarity. In the 19th century, they speculated that the closest living relatives of humans are chimpanzees. Based on the natural range of these creatures, they surmised that humans share a common ancestor with other African great apes and that fossils of these ancestors would ultimately be found in Africa. It is now accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.
That's the science, and the position that I have on the subject. I'll leave it there. 8)

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:27 pm
by Minimalist
kbs2244 wrote:As one of the best villains Hollywood has come up with lately said:
“I find your lack of Faith disturbing.”

And look what happened to him.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:36 pm
by kbs2244
I was referring back to Ish’s “Dark Energy” statement.
But, in the best Ying and Yang tradition, if there is one, shouldn’t there be the other?

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:44 pm
by Minimalist
Yin and Yang is more of that spiritual stuff, though.

If they both exist, then yes. If they are mere figments of human imagination then, no.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:52 pm
by Digit
To nail the subject down there are but two alternatives to the human race.
Evolution from something, or creation, whether by aliens or an omnipotent being. Take your pick!

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:07 pm
by Beagle
Digit wrote:To nail the subject down there are but two alternatives to the human race.
Evolution from something, or creation, whether by aliens or an omnipotent being. Take your pick!
Dig, there are many people of faith who believe in evolution. The creationists are the small exception.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:12 pm
by Digit
I accept that Beag but I cannot see how you can have faith in Genesis and evolution.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:33 pm
by Minimalist
Digit wrote:I accept that Beag but I cannot see how you can have faith in Genesis and evolution.

They are not literalists.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:40 pm
by Beagle
They are not literalists.
Quite true. Most people realize that Genesis is a collection of ancient stories about creation, the downfall of man, and the great flood. Amazingly these same themes are present in ancient cultures from around the world.

As has been said here many times, Genesis has two creation stories, and two flood stories. They probably reflect the predominent stories in the Middle East in ancient times. The authors of Genesis simply related the stories into one collection. This is, actually, very easy to see.

Most people I know don't have a problem with that. 8)