Evolution Vs Creation

[soul .gc]

Here is what I had listed in another forum when this thread got closed the first time...interested on your thoughts:

 

I see a lot of prove Evolutionism wrong and point out errors. Many scientists themselves say they have no idea how the world was formed.

 

Theory 1) By chance, Billions and billions and billions of years ago there was nothing at all. Then...somehow, out of nowhere, there is an explosion and gas particles start to collide and coalesce(sp) together. As they get mass they start to pull in other bigger objects and stars are formed...then the stars with their mass pull bigger objects out of the sky that begin to rotate around them (planets). Eventually Earth had Water appear on it due to condensation or some other phenomenom, and then as billions of years went by bacteria was formed and died and formed again much better then before until it formed Amoeba, then mammals, then land animals, then dinosaurs---then a comet hit and wiped out all life for thousands of years---then life started all over again but this time Man came about and evolved to what we are today--waiting on the next comet to appear.

 

Theory 2) By chance, Billions and billions and billions of years ago a being(s) far vaster then we could ever imagine created the earth and the galaxy. He then left it to develop and eventually helped along life as time went by, helping us develop and improve and creating us in his image.

 

Nowhere does it say Evolution did not occur with creationism, they are NOT independent of each other, they are joined hand in hand.

 

Remember, Moses wrote those books from what God let him know. God did not tell him to write down an exact detail for all the disbelievers in the future, give em a highlight of what happened. It takes faith to believe in Me, I do not have to prove my existence to you.

 

No one has proof of how the earth and life on it was brought about, let alone the Galaxy and Galaxies surrounding us.

 

So which theory is more believeable to you? Both are equally impossible for the human mind to fully grasp, both take FAITH to believe in, both are amazing. NEITHER can be proven while alive.

[Cyklik]

I have a question for you as well Hambone. What is a mind? This is something we've heard over and over again throughout school and life in general. When someone is losing their mind, what is really happening? Does your mind have mass? Can you sense the physical presence of your mind? Or is it, too, incorporeal? Humans are based on feelings and emotions, who's to say that the mind and soul aren't mere extensions of their feelings and emotions? The spiritual or emotional definition of a heart can also fall under this category.

[Cyklik]

Soul

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

 

Mind

1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.

3. The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality.

 

Heart (I only selected the definitions not applying to the physical organ)

1. The vital center and source of one's being, emotions, and sensibilities.

2. The repository of one's deepest and sincerest feelings and beliefs.

3. The seat of the intellect or imagination.

 

See, they're all pretty abstract, aren't they? I'd say that you would have to discredit all of them, or believe in all of them. There isn't really a picking-and-choosing here. By the way, these definitions are from www.dictionary.com

[Hambone]

Ok, the new Hambone doesn't stomp on other people's beliefs, so I'm simply smiling as you hand me words describing something that admitedly doesn't exist. The mind is an interesting thing though. I'm not a pyschologist or neurologist, so I couldn't give you the entire breakdown on how it works. It's chemical and electrical in nature though, I'll tell you that much. So the "mind" is different from the soul. Apparently, your soul is just... there. You can do fun stuff with your mind though. Ever taken a hallucogenic drug?

 

Soul, I want to talk to you a little bit more about the soul (and your portrayal of evolution). You said that you get a soul at birth. I'd like you to be as specific as possible. At birth means as the head of the baby exits the birth canal. Something happens in that instant as the baby's head exits the mother that gives him a soul. I don't quite see it to be honest. What about a baby who partially comes out, goes back in, and has to be delivered C-section? Does he get a soul, lose it, then get it again? Specificity I like.

 

I want to talk about your 2 theories now.

 

1) Billions and billions of years ago, there was an incomprehensibly large amount of matter. Our earth not included there. The earth is an extraordinarily young planet, by cosmic standards. And you can't have an explosion out of nothing. A concept still in development could shed a little light on this, called antimatter. It's too debatable right now to provide evidence contrary to Creationism, but it will be an interesting subject in a few decades. Back to planets forming. You got parts of this right, and parts of it a little mixed up. Mass aggregates. Everything has gravitational attraction. So, as mass aggregates, more mass aggregates, seperate aggregates cause more aggregation, and you get galaxies over millenia. Once a mass is large enough, it can support an atmosphere. The primitive Earth atmosphere (Oparin) contained the necessary elements for water, so it didn't just appear out of nowhere. Water supports the first life, as biological molecules are produced from combinations of energy and primitive gas. Bacterium were formed. And died, yes. You treat the Amoeba as a holy organism, it really isn't all that exciting, to me at least. It's a blob, it moves with undulapodia, it's a product of evolution. A comet did hit the earth. Did it wipe out all life? Of course not. Why would an enormous dust cloud affect chemiosmotic bacteria, or deep see creatures? Did it set back evolution? If it did everything it was made out to do, of course. But, transitionary species are a wonderful thing. I don't know if anyone read it or not but I posted a link to a snippit about a fish with a pelvic bone. Fish don't need pelvic bones for aquatic survival, so there is another reason they have it. Personally, I'm not holding my breath on a second comit either.

 

2) Ugh. The universe is older than billions and billions. You say God created Earth and the galaxy? Why did he just make our galaxy? That's what I'm assuming you mean. There's an infinite amount (literally) of other galaxies. Why ours?

 

You say that evolution and Creationism aren't independent of eachother. Ok, fine. But does the Bible even mention evolution, new species? That might have been something useful for God to tell you. Here's a fact though: Give me ~40 years and I will make a new kind of dog. So God technically didn't make all the animals. Unless you think what I have isn't an animal. So the Bible may be mostly right, but ever so slightly it is falliable. Now, to what degree?

 

Here's a question for anyone to answer.

Why does there have to be a beginning? Why does the human mind have to create a starting point in the universe? Is it impossible that there always has been something?

[Cyklik]

Eh, I can see your point there, but then again, your new dog is still a dog, is it not? There is a difference between a new breed and a whole new organism. Your new dog isn't going to eventually be a lion or some other type of animal. So technically, you won't even be leaving the genus. And when sites say that it was physically impossible for Noah to take ALL those animals on the ark, I think they are forgetting the very thing they are supporting. Noah didn't have to take animals from every single specie of beetle! He only really had to take 1, maybe a couple more for variation. Once the animals multiplied back on earth and began to spread to different environments, microevolution does it's work. Animals will adapt to their environment, much as Darwin discovered with the finches on other islands. Physical features can be changed slightly throughout generations and we will see that many species arise from just the few beetles that started.

 

______________EDIT_______________

The Strong's Concordance is a marvelous thing. I did a bit of research about the creation and looked up the hebrew word for "of its kind" (Occurs many times in Genesis 1). Here's what I found:

 

04327 miyn {meen}

 

from an unused root meaning to portion out; TWOT - 1191a; n m

 

AV - kind 31; 31

 

1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)

++++

Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they

have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not

preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the

original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A

new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding

occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a

further partitioning of an existing "kind".

 

Ignore all the funny numbers, and concentrate on the definition and the following paragraph. As you can see, in Hebrew, Microevolution may actually be mentioned in the Bible. Take it as you will, but I still think it's a strong point. We have to remember that the translations of the Bible can sometimes leave very important things out.

 

 

____________EDIT numero dos____________

After a little more research, I believe my theory was correct about the ark. The exact same Hebrew word mentioned above was used in Genesis 7 when it describes the animals that were put on the ark. Coincidence? as Paul would say, "Certainly not!"

[ConGregation]

You say that evolution and Creationism aren't independent of eachother. Ok, fine. But does the Bible even mention evolution, new species? That might have been something useful for God to tell you. Here's a fact though: Give me ~40 years and I will make a new kind of dog. So God technically didn't make all the animals. Unless you think what I have isn't an animal. So the Bible may be mostly right, but ever so slightly it is falliable. Now, to what degree?

Just because the Bible never mentions that new species of dog can be "made" makes it fallible? Where does it say that new species cannot be formed? Again you try to stretch truths to make a point they dont really make. Which in turn makes them offensive.

 

You mention the fish with a pelvic bone which you state it does not need. As the Creator, I think He has the right to create things as he likes. Why couldnt he create a fish with something it didnt need? The logic is simple.

 

As far as the discussion about the soul, I believe a soul is created at conception. I think it is Jeremiah that states that God knew him when he was in his mother's womb or something like that. I need to search out it in in the Bible but I would assume that is the case. And, if Im not mistaken, I think the Bible mentions God giving us a soul. Not sure though. I have heard the soul described as the part of you that never dies.

[soul .gc]

Ham--like I said, there is no proof of the Soul...what I am relaying is my own opinion of it and how it comes about.

 

As far as the universe--You give a nice explanation of the way some scientists say the galaxy was formed--what about stars? Did they just pop into being? I am familiar with Anitmatter and some scientifics views of its abilities, but that is pointless to argue.

 

"The primitive Earth atmosphere (Oparin) contained the necessary elements for water, so it didn't just appear out of nowhere."

 

Once again we are dealing with Faith since there is no factual evidence of this. You believe that water came about due to conditions while I believe it was a result of a higher power helping set the stage for our introduction.

 

The bible is not here to give us a scientific breakdown of How we evolved. It is here to provide a stepstone for us to learn a little about God, It is here to show us that Faith should be a cornerstone of your character.

 

Here is a good question Mr Facts: Do you love your parents? Yes? Why? If there is no belief in God or a higher power then what is Love? What is Hate? Who taught us these emotions/feelings?

 

Here is something for you to research. Have you ever looked at Childbirth? Read up on it and everything that happens on a week by week basis. See how the baby is formed, what happens in the Uterus as the pregnancy proceeds. Doctors cannot recreate this accurately yet. The human mind is an Enigma to everyone at this point. We only use 5percent I believe of our total brain power--why? How is the brain formed? Evolution formed this? Boy we have come a long way since that single amoeba in the lake that appeared out of nowhere.

[Cyklik]

Hey guys, let's settle down a bit here. Hammy conceded that he was being somewhat of a jerk earlier, let's not do the same with comments such as "Mr. Facts." Let's be civil here and respectful of one another. I think that this debate could actually be decent if we don't start down this path again.

[Hambone]

Lol, I'm not bothered, I like being Mr. Facts.

 

ConGregation, I want to talk to you about this fish before I forget in my digressions. If God is real/omnipotent, he sure can create a fish with a pelvic bone. But why? A pelvis could have some purpose for underwater living, but not for the fish it was found in. Besides competition, another "motive" for evolution is efficiency. It's why birds have hollow bones. It's why humans have mitochondrian in their cells. It's why fish don't have pelvic bones. This bone is weight. To carry this bone around, the fish is going to have to produce, over its lifetime, signicantly more ATP than if it didn't have it. And where did the fish get the bone from? Evolution specifically works to get rid of things such as this, but in this case an animal was given an inefficiency. My friend evolution doesn't do this for no reason, methinks. God can throw one in if he wants to, I suppose. But pelvic bones are a characteristic most land mammals have in common. And now an ancient fish turns up with one.

 

Ok, Your turn Soul.

 

Where did the stars come from? Well, stars are easier to deal with astronomically than planets. Stars aren't particularly stratified in structure. At least not to the degree of our planet, for instance. They're composed of lighter elements, lots of Hydrogen. Stars are useful in an astronomical sense. The energy they generate fused lighter elements to form heavy elements, metals, and other various gases. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You say there's no evidence for Oparin's theory. First of all, you cannot debate the fact that the theory works. Primitive gases can form all the biological molecules that are precursors for the first things we call life, including water. Water was a component of the atmosphere as a matter of fact, gaseous H2O. The only real place for debating is whether or not those gases actually existed. I'm not an expert on Oparin, so I won't pretend to be. Don't say there's no evidence for it though. And, if you're a cynic like me, this is a brilliant theory. This is something that can be simulated. This is something that accurately accounts for every aspect of primitive life. I'll take this over Creationism, something I can't simulate and accounts for nearly every aspect of primitive life.

 

Love and Hate are things we create. Products of human imagination. Primitive humans, I believe, were incapable of love and hate. This is not something that has proof, don't ask me for it, just a theory of mine. When you're too busy surviving, you don't have time for emotion. When you have free time, you can have time to cultivate things called emotion. Hate came before Love. All emotions are instinct. No one needs to teach you how to do either.

 

First of all, every single step of childbirth is completely mapped out, down to every cell, everything. Childbirth is not a mysterious process, as it once was. From conception to gastrulation to development to birth, it is all accounted for. And percent of brain power is quite an ambiguous term. If no one can use 100% of their brain, why is 100% a reference point? What does it mean to use 100% of your brain? I don't think 5% is accurate, but it should be the reference point to avoid confusion about weakness of human minds. As for the brain, the brain forming is no mystery. Cell mitosis/meiosis followed by cytokenesis, the same way every other organ is foremd during pregnancy. And the amoeba in the lake sure as hell (haha) didn't come out of nowhere.

[Zeabos]

I see my rock theory stands strong!

[Guest UberNewb]

Tried to follow, but now I'm done. Too long. But don't stop guys. This is definately a great discussion.

 

Uber

[NOFX]

I would like to get back into the debate, but without all this scientific mumbo jumbo and im not trying to insult in anyway.

 

The version of the bible that you read today was translated by 54 scholars appointed by King James I of England at the time of Shakesphere, it was translated the way it so that it sound rythmic and to be read aloud and so it could be taught easily and learned by heart. Fatty says there could be translation problems by the egyptains, but there could be translation problems here as well.

 

I just read some of genesis for the first time in my life. I have to read it for my world lit. class. I dont see how some of the things said could work such as:

 

how Noah could be six hundred years old? its impossible.

It would be impossible to round up every species in the world. You couldn't fill an ark with every type of bird there is.

 

and last i would like to say, Genesis says he made everything in a time period of 6 days.

There was all types of organisms on earth millions of years before humans.

[Hambone]

Whoa, I wanted to talk about both Noah and certain types of birds coincidentally, so here goes.

 

The Bible says Noah is about 600 years old. For the next 5 minutes, I'm going to assume that this is true. What advantage would being 600 years old have? Noah could not be human. Humans don't live this long. But, like I said, I'm going to assume he existed. Now we have to look at properties coherent with aging. There is a protein in the extracellular matrix called collogen. Pull your skin out, and let it snap back. This is collogen working, it is elastic in nature. This is where wrinkles comes from. Collogen is denatured with age, as oxidation takes place. So, if Noah was 600 years old, the skin from his face would be dangling just around his waist. I sure hope that wasn't my forefather! Secondly, let's talk about the heart. The heart is a muscle you can't control. It beats constantly, never ceasing. Subtle changes (fibrillation or randomization, forgot the technical word) cause death. So Noah's heart beat with no inconcistencies for 600 years. The heart gets tired. Never having any time to rest, it gets tired and old after about 70 years. Multiply that times 8 and add some. So Noah didn't circulate much blood either. But the Bible said he lived 600 years, so he did, according to some. Let's talk about scurvey now. Scurvey always has been present. The causes and treatments weren't discovered until more recent centuries (on a Biblical scale). So what did Noah eat? It better include some type of fruit (which won't keep for 150 days) or Noah's gums are black and bleeding, compounded with his droopy skin. This probably wans't a pleasent guy to look at.

 

Now let's talk about birds, since it was brought up. God created all birds. Ok. I don't think he did personally, but ok. Birds live in a variety of enviroments. Birds are a wonderous "creation," they have hollow bones, store energy as lipids, and have varities of unique evolutionary inventions to make them lighter. What about seabirds? Seabirds have to wade for long periods of time in cold water, to get their food. Blue Heron as an example, with its long stilt-like legs. Sitting in the ocean, they lose body heat quickly. All mammals spend the majority of their ATP on homeostasis, and here is a bird counteracting that. How can he do this, while other birds can't? In his legs, a very interesting arrangement of arteries and veins exist, creating a situation called counter-current exchange. As birds discovered wading as a technique to get food, they evolved this characteristic. As hot blood leaves the heart, and heads down towards the feet, it is met oppositely by cold blood exiting the feet in veins. The two exchange heat. So hot blood returns to the heart, and conserves ATP. If this veins and arteries were in the same direction, warm water would be the product of both. This would be inefficient, as homeostasis energy is being undone. So by a little change in structure, a bird can survive in a hostile enviroment? Isn't that grand?

 

Now D o D, I'd like to remind you to be careful about throwing around the word

Coincidence? as Paul would say, "Certainly not!"

Do you think it's coincidence that this small set of birds has a different blood vessel relationship? Is it coincidence their bones are hollow? Is it coincidence that my old fish friend has a pelvic bone? Is it coincidence all cells share a respiratory pathway, no matter how old or new? as Paul would say, "Certainly not!"

[soul .gc]

Hambone--How do we know that we did not evolve aging, maybe people used to live for centuries at a time, then as years went by the human body developed aging? OR as a result of a Sin we all are forced to age. Your argument is very good if we are talking about a body structure in the present time....which we are not.

 

I guess we will always be at an impass. You will believe your scientific, "show me proof" stance and I will continue with my duality belief that Evolution and Creationism both happened. It is my opinion, and belief, that a higher power did create the Earth, Sun, Galaxy, Universe, and everything else and then set us on the path of evolution with little pushes as we progressed.

 

You are right and wrong on childbirth. It is mapped out as to what happens each step of the way...what is not mapped out is why it happens and how we came to give birth. If you honestly believe that we evolved from that first amoeba to what we are today then good for you. I, however, do not believe this.

I could probably believe part of it...all the way up until you get to the brain. and thought patterns. This is something that is still not understood to this day. Sure, we can say how the brain is physically formed and created....but how about how we think? How we store memories, feelings, beliefs....

 

Hate came before love??? How? You think that the primitive guy back in the pre-stone age was sitting around with his collection of women and kids, dragging them around by their hair and when they died he did not care? How could Hate come before love? you have to love something in order to develop hate when it is taken away....you cannot have Hate without Love...it cannot exist.

 

DoD--I called him Mr. Facts because he is...all he wants is facts. It had no derogatory conotation so please stop reading too much into this.

[Fatty]

I think what turns people off about your "debating", Ham, is your tendency to attempt to be so "large" by saying things like "I'd like to remind you to be careful," etc, etc. You talk a good debate, but don't ruin it by attempting to talk over the others. Let your findings talk for you, not your ego.

[NOFX]

As I have watched this debate, it has acctually opened my eyes.

 

My view on this subject after takin classes in world lit, religion and biology and reading everyones view is this this:

 

The book that you read today was written by hebrews long long ago, and because of the language barrier is very had to translate. I read part of genesis today from scholors who translated it today instead of King James scholors. It sounded very different, instead of this thou art stuff from the shakesphere period. The translators from King James acctually made great peice of work.

 

Every religion is about finding the meaning in the world filled with mystery. If you could prove there is a God, you wouldnt need religion.

 

Here is what it comes down to: Does it work for you?

Some people believe because it helps the have a good life and they need it

and others find a different way and do not need it

[Nitemare]

Ok, here we go. I am going to attempt to answer your question on the soul Hombone. Most of the posts since your orignal question have been exceptionally long and I tried to read them but the length eventually took it's tool. So if I say something that has already been stated forgive the repetition.

 

In my own beliefe the soul isn't something visible, or even comprehendable. To define the soul is like trying to explain why 1 + 1 = 2. It just does.

 

Every relegion has their own beliefe about the soul. Some believe the soul exists before life and has a pre-determined destiny. Others would believe the soul is eternal and continues to live in another life after it's body has died. Whether that be through re-incarnation or a Judeo-Christian view of a literal After-life.

 

My personal beliefe on the soul is that it is the part of each person that can directly connect them to God through the Holy Spirit. Granted this leaves questions about those who lived in the time period of the OT.

 

As for the analogy that the mind is like the spirit in-as-much as neither one can be measured or percieved I have to say I agree. Your statement that the mind is a mixure of chemicals and elctrical impulses is a bit skewed Hambone. The brain is able to function by direct result of this process but who says the mind does not continue even if this pattern is broken for a period of time. I have friends that believe everyone is part of one "Universal Consiousness" and that when your body dies your mind stays as a part of that "UC" and therefore is eternal.

 

But ultimately who knows the answer to these questions??? And does it really matter??

[Cyklik]

First of all, about the 600 year old Noah thing. Before the flood in Genesis 7, God said (I think in chapter 6) that He would limit the days of man to 120 years. The effects took place gradually. But now, due to this and our environment, the average lifespan of a human is between 70-80 years. Also, it is theoried that the pre-flood air was actually ozone (O3). Today we have the technology to make chambers filled with ozone, called Hyperbaric chambers. These are used many times for patients with certain diseases, and the benefits have been pretty impressive. When things were grown under this atmosphere, tomato plants have produced up to the size of basketballs! Wounds heal faster, things grow better, and the air you breathe in is much more nourishing. I personally think that the impact from this was huge. Also, another theory is that before the flood, the earth was surrounded by a barrier of ice in the atmosphere, which would GREATLY reduce the amount of UV rays getting through. This would also prolong life to some degree. The backup for that is in Genesis when, describing the beginning of the flood, it says "and the windows of Heaven were opened." The science backing up this theory is the physical properies of superconductors. They have been used in Japan on certain tram-lines to make the cars actually levitate above the tracks (or in between them, I don't remember). And this principle could be applied to make this large ice sphere stay up where it was.

 

___________EDIT_____________

As far as the "Certainly Not!" thing, I was referring to there not having to be animals from every single specie. I was making the statement that if there were only a few different species from every genus, and maybe even less, that microevolution could lead to the proliferation of other species. And you're right Hambone, those instances aren't coincidence, they are microevolution in effect.

 

 

__________EDIT #2___________

Ardea herodias, or the Great Blue Heron, is in the class Aves (Birds). Strange enough, so is Struthio camelus, or the ostrich. The Geococcyx californianus, also known as the Roadrunner, is in the Aves class as well. These are examples of microevolution.

Think about flowers for a second here. I'm sure you know about how polyploidy can lead to the birth of new species, and through self fertilization this specie can flourish. It's just an example, but I thought it might be pertinent.

[Hambone]

D o D, forgive me for saying this, but I think you made most of that up. I've never heard of that O3 conditioning thing you talked of, and I've never heard anything about the biblical atmosphere being O3. What I do know are facts about ozone, which completely contradicts what you just posted. Read on:

 

Ozone in the Troposphere

Ozone is produced by the reaction of sunlight, oxygen, and automobile exhaust (which contains hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides). Ozone is largely responsible for the discomfort associated with photochemical smog. This form of smog, long familiar to people in the Los Angeles basin, is now common wherever sunlight and stagnant air occur in urban areas (Mexico City is a dramatic example with ozone levels that often exceed 100 ppb and sometimes rise above 350 ppb). High levels of ozone during smog build-up can cause difficulty to people with respiratory ailments like emphysema and asthma. Ozone also damages plants and may be an important factor in the damage that is occurring to forests in Europe and North America.

 

Ozone is toxic. Ozone hurts plants. That's the reason it stays in the Stratosphere. Humans can't use O3 in the aerobic pathway. Noah's dead before he was even born if this was the case. That's a pretty wacky theory. Ozone is not cool, here's a source you can click (the other was from www.biology.com, a restricted access site). Take a look at this site http://www.mde.state.md.us/arma/Programs/A...zone/ozone.html. Ozone is not our friend in the troposphere, where Noah lived.

[Hambone]

Ok, want to get back to you Soul.

 

You say the human body could have developed aging. You treat aging as a property of evolution, like there's an aging gland inside our cells. Nope. Oxidation kills everything. The same oxygen we breath to live causes us to die. There is no way to live for six hundred years, period. If aging was something we developed, that means collogens and involuntary muscles did not exist, because these are some of the big things that "aging" affects. So Adam and Eve, in all their glory would have stomachs that were scraping the ground as they walked. They would not have circulated blood, they're kidneys would not have functioned, nor their livers, lungs, etc. Collogens break down over time.

 

Back to childbirth. Childbirth is not a mystery, at all. Everything that happens can be exactly pinpointed, and why. Hormones are responsible for most of the process. There seriously is extremely little we don't know about childbirth. As for why, this is also an easy question. Humans are animals. Higher animals reproduce sexually. Why do we do childbirth? So our species doesn't becomes extinct; it's a process of sexual reproduction. And I think you take the amoeba to be much more significant that it really is. An amoeba is just an amoeba. They're cool, you an I didn't necessarily evolve from an amoeba.

 

Hate came before love??? How? You think that the primitive guy back in the pre-stone age was sitting around with his collection of women and kids, dragging them around by their hair and when they died he did not care? How could Hate come before love? you have to love something in order to develop hate when it is taken away....you cannot have Hate without Love...it cannot exist.

This doesn't have much to do with creationism, but I brought it up so I'll answer it. Hate necessarily has to come before love. First of all, humans are an aggregating species. Sexual intercourse was not a sacred act as it is today. I doubt they dragged their kids around by their hair, but ok. If they died, I doubt he would care anyways. How would you know whose is whose anyways? Positive emotions define themselves by negative ones. Good is defined as the opposite of evil, not vice versa. To incorporate John Locke, men are evil in their natural state. Good is only good, love is only love, because it has something to contrast with. The motive for human development (not evolution, mind you) is discontent. It drives people to invent things, improve life, kill other people. It drives this conversation, we want truth don't we? Discontent is linked to hatred, not love.

 

As for the mind, you're going to have to ask pyschologist, not me. I'm 17, I'm no graduate student. If you can find an objective source on the workings of the mind, I'll read it. I'll try and do the same. That's it for now.

[ConGregation]

I see things are going fine in here. Keep it civil guys!

 

I was thinking today... And I wanted to ask Hambone some questions. These are just simple things and probably have an easy explanation.

 

1. How did the different sexes develop? Now just looking at this from a logical POV it looks strange. The male version of whatever specie we all came from had to devolop alongside the female version. Now that seems HIGHLY coincidental to me. I mean the male gets his "thing" and wonders what in the world he could do with it, when lo and behold the female gets her "thing" and wouldnt you know it... it makes little versions of themselves. Just me thinking here, but if evolution were true, wouldnt it make sense that we would have that reproduction capability of doing it all in one? I kinda think that "survival of the fittest" would benefit that specie. And heck, its easier to evolve it anyways. Again there could be a logical explanation such as... Well I thought I could think of one but didnt. O well.

 

2. How did the eye devolop? Evolution happens by random mutations. To say the eye was a single mutation is highly suspect. Look at how many intricate parts there are. So then you would have to say that it evolved through steps. I dont know but that sounds far fetched as well. Some primitive specie walking (or swimming) around with a defunct eyeball that did nothing but cause pain or present a weakness for others to attack. And then... What Luck! it develops a retinae or some such part until it gets to the point that it perceives light. Again, not that I know anything but it just sounds so UN-logical and perposterous. Of course I dont know much and there might be logical answers to this stuff.

 

I probably read these somewhere but I dont remember it. I read soo much stuff last time we debated this but only remember 2% of it at most.

[Hambone]

Sexes are an easy one, eyes, hrm. So let me start with what I know lol.

 

In lower organisms and lower animals, everything reproduces asexually. This does not mean there are no gametes, but this does mean there are no sexes. Take a bacterium for instance. Here there aren't even gametes. The only method of reproduction is bundling up the chromatin into chromosomes, replications, then mitosis/meiosis followed by cytokeninesis. This works fine, but it is rather energy demaning, and complete splitting isn't particualy efficient. So gametes develop. Gametes are much more efficient than replication and splitting. It allows the organism to produce smaller items that combine with the other and produce larger ones. Sponges, to give an example. They release gametes into the water, and allow chance to let them combine and form new sponges. This works fine in water, you don't see excessive amounts of sexual animals underwater (there are enough, but not compared to land organisms). Now land. With no water medium, gametes can't just be released. They have to be controlled, and fertilization becomes more precise. This is where the sexes come in. Each sex produces a different gamete, and when they combine, a new organism can be created. There are also reasons why higher animals don't reproduce asexually, but I don't know all of them. Mainly it has to do with gamete control though. If a bear has ovaries and testes, every single egg will be fertilized, and the bear population would become so enormous it would deplete the environment and the species would be extinct. Sexual reproduction is also closely related to the excretory system, since over time nature has found an efficient (and fun ) way to combine the two.

 

I don't know the exact specifics on eye evolution, or the exact mechanics. The eye is a feature of Kingdom Animalia. It probably developped as a survival advantage. And primitive eyes weren't exactly what we would call an eye. An eye I will define as any instrument that lets an animal become aware of its surroundings. Skin and nerves could be called eyes, they allow an animal to recognize that it is water or air. Sonar is a form of eye. Over time, animals found advantages in culminating sensory nerves into single locations, which is probably where the eye came in. If this is a little hazy to you, sorry. It is for me too.

[soul .gc]

Once again Ham---we comeback to the point of I cannot prove to you they lived that long and you cannot prove to me they did not. You CAN prove that modern homosapiens age and die mostly between 70-90 years of age. Who knows what effects the atmosphere, the conditions, etc...had on these people. We have a lot of facts running around that point to the way things are NOW...not then.

 

We did not evolve from an Amoeba? then what did we evolve from? After this "mysterious" bang and our solar system is formed and our planet cools down, we just appear? Animals just spring into growth? plants spring into growth? Just curious.

 

As to your Hate before Love theory...I completely disagree. Did you hate your mom then love her as time went by? What about your father? If HAte truly comes first then you must hate more then you love in order to continually balance that equation. You bring Locke into the discussion and he is someone who wrote his views in the 1600's and those have been refuted and discussed countless times in the last 300 years.

[Hambone]

Ugh, whatever you do don't say "you weren't there, so you can't prove it exists" thing. I live in Atlanta. Does this mean that as I'm in Atlanta, I can't prove that the state of Alabama exists? I'm not there, so technically it couldn't be there, and I'd never know. But Alabama is there. I wasn't at the American Civil War, but does anyone ever doubt that it happened? If you say no, how do you know? You weren't there! I do know one thing though. Nature is constant. Life expectancy of humans doesn't suddenly increase 12-fold and then revert back to normal for 1 generation.

 

In the interest of avoiding needless repetition, could you go back and read some of my older posts (ignoring anything insulting). I've talked in length about the formation of earth, origins of cells and organisms at length. If you still have a question after that I'll be obliged to answer it.

 

As for your analogy for my hate-love theory, I think you have it mixed up. After a baby's mind has formed, it can think. Love is an emotion you develop later in life, or at least express it then. Hate shows up far earlier. Babies sure do cry alot. They cry when they're hungry, or thirsty, or tired. Sheer loathing of their situation, and the knowledge that they can't do anything about it. That's hate. Of course, this is just my thoughts. Nothing I can link you to will prove this. Now to Locke. I don't think Locke has ever been "refuted", or can be. Would you please link me to somewhere that says that? People who refute Locke are people that advocate Communism, Despotism, Dictatorship, and Anarchy. And his thoughts are extremely relevant in my argument, regardless of their "refuted-ness".

[soul .gc]

hahahahahha

 

You now draw into the Civil war and the state of the country as it is withoin the last few hundred years? We have recorded proof of the Civil War, of the Revolutionary War, of the egyptians, the Asians, the African tribes. What I was referring to and you would understand if you reread the comments was far before that.

 

hahaha..1 generation? lol

 

Once again we get off on a tangent. I think I am done seeing as how you are not moving in your view and neither am I.

 

"Nature is constant" That is a very incorrect statement or else you throw off your entire evolution theory since we constant would not include mutations and new species.

 

One last thing on the Hate issue. This again is something we will never prove. I feel sorry for you a little that you think this way, a lot of joy is lost this way. But we could end up in the psychological argument for months and still never resolve the issue to either of our satisfaction. What you descibe about the baby and that feelingbeing Hate is incorrect. That feeling would be helplessness.