Do you believe in evolution?

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well you have to figure that most of the views are probably the same people checking the new posts so you can't compare the two really.
Maybe I'll have to vote twice in the pres election. I just need to assume the name of an illegal alien.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by socal57che
Maybe I'll have to vote twice in the pres election. I just need to assume the name of an illegal alien.
I have no idea with this means. . .
Although for this poll you can only vote once but you can view the thread as many times as you like. I figure this poll received 82 votes and it has been only up for a few days. I briefly looked at a few other polls and most did not even have half of the number of votes that this one has. It seems like a good crosssection of this forum voted...

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I have no idea with this means. . .
It means that if Hillary's people actually show up and vote, I may have to cheat.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Eaglephot
Praying isn't going to help.
Are you sure about this?

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by socal57che
It means that if Hillary's people actually show up and vote, I may have to cheat.
But I don't see what 'Hilary's people' have to do with a poll on evolution. Sorry, I'm slow...

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by socal57che
It means that if Hillary's people actually show up and vote, I may have to cheat.
For some reason, when I think of Hillary's people I think of very large women with mullets...I have no idea why and it makes me laugh.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
But I don't see what 'Hilary's people' have to do with a poll on evolution. Sorry, I'm slow...
Comparing voters, not polls. People that watch, then complain, rather than voting. I was going to make up for them by casting multiple votes.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Jmick
For some reason, when I think of Hillary's people I think of very large women with mullets...I have no idea why and it makes me laugh.
Does Rosie O' like Hillary?

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
That's dangerous...
First off I'm a Christian. Second, I have a degree in Biology with an emphasis in Marine life. Third, I'm 2/3 of the way into a Masters at a great, conservative Seminary.
Having said that, I can honestly say I'm not sure how science and Genesis mesh.
Genesis begins with the words "In the beginning God...". That's all we know for sure. If you want to interpret the Creation story as literal you have a couple of difficulites to overcome. 1. The order of things being created. 2. The "day" being created on day 4. Etc.
Genesis was written to glorify God to the wandering tribes of Israelites, not to argue scientists in the 21st century.
Do I believe the Bible is infallible? Yup, sure do. Do I pretend to think I understand it all? No way.
To a great degree God could very well have created life through an evolutionary process. I see no evidence of that myself, but it is not excluded from the Bible. The contradiction with the Bible occurs if you believe creation is random and man is formed from apes.
1journeyman... I didn't know! Good to know, brother!

Are you going to become a pastor, or something?

 

[clown boy]

Jerhunter, I finally got around to finding the facts about homo habilis and homo erectus. Are you still interested?

 

[socal57che]

why r u up @ 2:30am?
may I have the condensed version...what by whom and when?
sorry, when I logged in it changed the time of your post from 2:30am to 10:30 pm
goodnight/morning

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Jerhunter, I finally got around to finding the facts about homo habilis and homo erectus. Are you still interested?
Sure, although right now I need to go, but whenever you want feel free to share, I will read.

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by socal57che
why r u up @ 2:30am?
may I have the condensed version...what by whom and when?
sorry, when I logged in it changed the time of your post from 2:30am to 10:30 pm
goodnight/morning
LOL I worked overtime last night...

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by ophiura
An aside...I take the sorts of comments in this/similar threads - in terms of judgment of my relationship with God based on my belief in evolution - very personally. I have not been treated well when people have learned that I study evolution, and I have had to be very very careful in every "admitting" that I am an evolutionary biologist because of it. So there ARE many out there who believe or imply their "superiority" in their beliefs, as we approached a bit earlier on this thread.
I do believe that once we reach the point of just quoting different scriptures, that there is not much discussion going on. I hope we don't get back into that pattern, because it isolates people (though I enjoyed the other perspectives that Jerthunter tried to bring in

I understand that there are many people that are judgmental toward spiritual people that study evolution. I wasnt saying that Christians dont do it - I was pointing out that I was raised to believe that true Christians should not do it. Sorry about the confusion.
I think quoting scriptures comment was on point. Not only is it not along the lines of what the OP proposed, but it has nothing to do with the facts or ideas behind the evolution debate from a scientific standpoint. This topic can be well debated without bringing religion into it. My take was that this would be a good forum to discuss the inaccuracies that are common belief to both sides of the argument.

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Sure, although right now I need to go, but whenever you want feel free to share, I will read.
Alright, here it goes... I'll do one at a time, starting with:
And I quote:

Homo Habilis (1470 Man)
Homo Habilis is the next on our chart from the Reader's Digest book. In June 1973, the National Geographic magazine published an article that was devastating to the conventional ideas about human evolution. It reported a new find in Kenya, Africa by anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leading evolutionary expert on the so-called "hominid" ancesters of Homo Sapiens. The discovery was called "skull 1470" (foureen-seventy) for it's catalog number in the Kenya national museum.
Leakey made an astounding challenge, highlighted prominently in bold by National Geographic. He wrote:
"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man."
The anthropologist said this fossil was 2.8 million years old, yet it belongs to man's genus. In other words, Leakey claimed that it was more man-like than any other near-man relics on the chart. The problem was that the skull was found beneath volcanic ash that had been acceptably dated for years by evolutionist reckoning as 2.6 million years old. That would make a human looking ancestor over a million years older than our nearest ape-like ancestor. It's no wonder Leakey made the puzzling statement: "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." And because of the skull's "surprisingly large braincase," Leakey shockingly admitted, "it leaven in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."
Keep in mind that the National Geographic Society is a major financial supporter of field explorations (including Leakey's) to find fresh new specimens to put on the line-up of man's evolutionary origins. It is worth noting that they are willing to publish such discoveries with considerable fanfare even when they are controversial.
Let's realize the implications of Leakey's comments. He stated that the chart with which we have all become familiar is now a "notion" left "in ruins." The "orderly sequence of evolutionary change" apparently does not rate any better than a "notion."
After this high profile publicity, Leakey lectured in San Diego, California as well as other places. Audiences heard him explain his conviction that his discovery eliminates everything we've been taught about human origins. He said he had nothing to offer in place of the popular concepts.
What about the Artist's Reconstruction?

Though the skull 1470 has a cranial capacity well within the range of modern humans, isn't it remarkable how the National Geographic artist can characterize a face he has never seen? All the soft superficial fleshy parts of a face are a big guess. Yet the ears, lips, nose, hair and skin color are all presented to the gullible public as though the scientists had a crystal ball into the past.
What Does Science Really Tell Us?
In his thoroughly researched book, Bones of Contention, author Marvin Lubenow brings to light that the facial bones were not clearly connected enough to know for sure if the face should be flat like a human or with jaw extended like an ape. As he further pointed out, "Homo habilis is flawed taxon, or category, because it is a mixture of fossils that are definitely not human." Well now we have a problem. Evolutionists can't have a candidate for a missing link that is admitted to have a skull qualifying as modern man, but that dates back to over two and a half million years ago. This paradox continued for almost a decade.
Finally, in 1981, evolutionists came up with a technical way to adjust the radiometric date and assign a revised age for the volcanic ash strata at the Olduvai Gorge under which skull 1470 was found. Now they're saying it's less than two million years old, and that other Homo habilis fossils are dated much younger. All of them are contemporary with the human-looking characters claled Homo erectus near the end of the chart.
Since Homo habilis physically looks like true man, regardless of the age they assign it, how can it be something evolving to man? What would they do if they found human looking bones in the same geologic age assigned to the dinosaurs? Will they push man's origin back 100 million years or figure a way to reassign the age of the rocks again? Just wait, and you will learn about even more mysterious finds (mysterious only because they don't fit the commonly accepted evolutionary beliefs about human beginnings).

 

[clown boy]

End of quote. By Dennis R. Peterson in his book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. It's an excellent book... I highly recommend that you get it.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
It seems to me that this thread is wandering off topic. The question is about evolution. Evolution theory takes no position about the origin of life, the earth or the universe itself. Evolution refers only to the mechanisms that produce new characteristics and species, and efforts to divert the discussion to unsolvable questions only dilutes the points being made.
Well, yes and no.
Darwin's book was titled "Origin of the Species"...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by socal57che
I'm pretty amazed at the poll results.
I honestly figured it would be a lot more one-sided than what it is.
60/40

Whoever said it proves that most of SWF has not voted was spot on. It doesn't give me much confidence in the upcoming presidential election.
I didn't vote because it's not really a fair question. It's too broad.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
1journeyman... I didn't know! Good to know, brother!

Are you going to become a pastor, or something?
I was a Minister to Students for almost 13 years. Left my last position about a year ago.
In between churches right now. I'm floating my resume around a bit, but I'm also pursuing a career with Government where I can participate in the war on terror. We'll see.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I was a Minister to Students for almost 13 years. Left my last position about a year ago.
In between churches right now. I'm floating my resume around a bit, but I'm also pursuing a career with Government where I can participate in the war on terror. We'll see.
Pastor, freedom fighter... Its all gods work.

Semper Fi...