There is one God. Everyone believes in the same God but I guess some religions don't want to share the same God.
Nelle-
You are right. We (Muslims) believe Jesus is a Prophet.
Printable View
There is one God. Everyone believes in the same God but I guess some religions don't want to share the same God.
Nelle-
You are right. We (Muslims) believe Jesus is a Prophet.
I appreciate your thoughts. But i have a question for you. I just want to learn more that's all. Not attacking any religion here.:
If Jesus is God, then why do i sometimes hear that Jesus is the "son" of God.
Plus, how do i/we change the title of this thread?? I think it should be called something like "Godly discussions" ;)
TD- I see no one has answered your question yet, probably bc the trinity is so hard to explain!!
Basically, God is 3 'parts' - the father, the son, and the holy spirit. They are all the one God but he exists as 3 persons. Jesus is the part of God called the Son. Not the same as in a human father and son but he is called this because he is God in human form and was created in Mary through the Holy Spirit.
I'm not very good at explaining it and it's very confusing but I hope that makes a little sense!!
Luke 1:
Hebrews 1:3:
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be calleda the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God.”38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.
:
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Just to clarify this, JW's don't believe in the Trinity, they believe Jesus is the Son of God, not God Himself.:
Just :bump: this thread so we can continue our discussion - fascinating!
The God is the same (there is only 1 true God), but the way of worship and the beliefs are very different.:
christians worship according to the direction given by Jesus Christ, and Muslims worship according to the directions given by Mohammud.
Muslims believe both of these men are/were prophets sent by God, so the question is, to which one should we listen? Christians listen to Jesus because of the sacrifice that he gave in order to bring us closer to God. And because of Jesus sacrifice, God elevated him to a position above all others (including mohammad)
So yes, we worship the same God, but our method is very different.
I believe in evoloution, considering there is scientific proof of this.
I do not believe all the "magic" stuff it just does not seem in the slightest part possible, I think the bible has been made from chinese whispers along the way, it may well have started with a great man by the name of jesus whom was a great healer ie,Doctor..
I then believe over time its been more and more elaborated on.
Raising-dancers - evolution actually hasn't been proven, at this stage it is just a theory, like creation.
As for the bible being chinese whispers - well there have been old old copies found (I think the oldest complete Hebrew bible was from AD 1008) and the variations between copies is minimal.
There were some scrolls found in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls) containing text of 830 books - 202 of them biblical texts. There was a community living in that area from 250BC till about 68AD - so super super early, and again, the variations minimal. The sort of variations we are talking about are like spelling differences (eg color/colour)
Anyway, I think the bible - if you look into it - is very credible as a historical text. Especially the New Testament!
I believe in the biblical account of creation.
Evolution is a theory. It is not proven fact, and it must be accepted by faith just like creation must be accepted by faith. And, given the order, beauty and precise balance of the world out there, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of an intelligent Creator, rather than random chance.
About God - TD, you did hit on one of the most difficult things to understand about what the Bible says about God. It clearly says he is one, and yet it also clearly shows that there are three "persons" working as God, and being worshipped as God - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So we believe in the Trinity - three persons, one being. All God.
Wow, great thread.
I am concerned about the concept that women have pain in childbirth because of eve's 'fall'. It seems like a patriarchal oppression of women through the physiology of their bodies. The idea that god says women must feel pain seems to deny us the opportunity to experience child birth beyond pain- which I believe I did achieve. To think that birth=pain plays into medical intervention and the paternal model of care we have today.
I would be interested to hear if Muslims also take this view on childbirth.
As for evolution, I am ok with a creationist idea that god created all things, but I do believe evolution has occurred...whether god is responsible for that doesn't matter to me...evolution of animals seems logical to me.
I have rejectEd a lot of my Christian upbringing so I hope not to offend anyone. The discussion so far has been awesome.
I remember reading something on this a while ago and I posted it in another thread::
:
The Bible clearly teaches that giving birth is a blessing to women. Although some women have pain in labor and birth for a variety of causes, there is nothing in either the Bible or the Jewish Talmud to indicate that such pain is either necessary or normal.
The so-called "curse of Eve", cannot be traced to the Scriptures or to early Judaism. It is first found in distorted Christian teachings of the third and fourth centuries A.D. Christian teachings promulgated that abstinence, even in marriage, was the way to salvation. A woman had to groan in labor to atone for her "sin" of marital sex. This teaching persisted for over a thousand years. When chloroform was discovered by Sir James Simpson in the early 19th century for use in cases of difficult childbirth, there was an outcry from the Christian church. This was construed as a blasphemous attempt to rebel against the curse that God had laid upon Eve. Even Queen Victoria in the late 19th century was criticized heavily for having used anesthesia, for having gone against the dictates of the "Christian" teachings with the birth of her 8th child.
Pain during child birth was actually a rare occurrence in our ancient ancestry. Pain and death was not associated with childbirth until the 16th and 17th century when people began to flock to the cities. Midwives, or wise women, were burned at the stake and falsely accused of witchcraft throughout Europe, especially if they administered any form of pain relief. They were admonished to make the women suffer. The masses of people no longer lived off of the blessings of the land, but used coin to trade for food, goods and services. The decline in health and sanitation until the 1940's, and the epidemics of child bed fever as women began delivering in the "houses of charity" (the precursor for the modern day hospital) created unhealthy conditions for our great great grandmothers to birth in.
The Bible does not degrade womanhood. It does not label child bearing as a curse. It is the interpretation of the words in the Bible that we must look at.
Genesis 3:16 is the passage commonly quoted by those who believe women have been "cursed to give birth in pain". That it is Eves punishment for having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The word translated as "sorrow" or "pain" is the Hebrew word estev. This word is also used when God curses Adam. This word is accurately translated as sorrow. Let's look at this Bible verse from the New Revised Standard Version. Genesis 3:16-17:To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your pangs (estev) in childbearing; in pain (estev) you shall bring forth children."
And to the man He said, "...cursed is the ground because of you; in toil (estev) shall you eat of it all the days of your life..."
When the Hebrew word is translated as "pain" for the woman and "toil" for the man, it is clear that the translator's cultural beliefs have biased his judgment as a scholar of the text. The best description of giving birth is toil, or labor.
Estev is also translated as "toil" in Proverbs 5:10, 10:22, Isaiah 68:3 and elsewhere. Again, it is translated as "toil" in Chronicles 4:9, which is the only verse in the entire bible that uses estev in connection with the actual birth of a child. To be consistent with other usage of estev in the Bible, Genesis 3:16 should be translated as toil.
And Jabez was more honorable than his brethren: and his mother called his name Jabez (which means "Height"), saying, Because I bare him with toil (estev).
Estev is used 16 times throughout the Bible. And not once does it convey the meaning of pain for which we are made to believe in Genesis 3:16. Rabbi Hirsch says: "Estev is only a mental pain and hurt feelings or worry...The root is...a modification of forsaken...the feeling that we have to give up something that we would have liked to keep, or to have attained."
This prevailing thought that child birth is a curse did not originate in Judaism.
Those of us who are already mothers know what we have given up. Our bodies are fatter, we have stretch marks, we lose sleep, we put our needs second to our offspring's wishes and desires, and our children, while an immense joy who cultivate our depth of love, try our patience and find ways to grieve our hearts. Perhaps this pain of childbirth is not the day spent in labor, but the life time of nurturing a child and letting go as that child reaches maturity and flies away from the nest. Perhaps it is the ups and downs of parenting with it's laughter and tears and merry-go-round of emotions.
When Eve gives birth she announces it with Joy! Every account of birth in the Bible is one of joy. Leah praises God at the births of her children. At the birth of Joseph, Rachel exclaims happily, "The Lord has given me another son!"
Thanks heaven! Great passage!
Only read parts of this and NEED to jump in with replies!
1. Scientific theory = "what we take to be fact". It doesn't mean "we think it's probably right." Therefore, evolution is seen as FACT and not some airy-fairy theory. It's the theory of gravity too, remember. Theory in science is different to theory in common parleance. Just as in science you don't weigh something in kg - weight is in newtons and is a force, whereas mass is a constant and is in grams. Or a scientific cell is different to a monk's cell - and in fact two different things depending on if you are into physics or biology.
2. The Bible and Evolution work together very well. Things evolve in the same order that the Bible states they were made. Why not use evolution? It seems a pretty nifty way of doing things. I'm not a literal 7-day person; I am not one to think that my 24-hour day is one that God is constrained by.
3. Predestination. Just because I know how a film will end doesn't mean I predestine it. (Yes, predestine is a word.) Just because God knows everything doesn't mean I am a puppet dancing to His string-twitching. God gave us free will. He pre-destined us ALL to be saved, all we have to do is accept it. God didn't pick who will and who will not accept their salvation: salvation is for ALL, not just a few. He chose, or pre-ordained, that we would have the choice and we could all choose to be saved. Just cos we don't doesn't mean God is picking for us to go to Hell.
4. Who is God? He is the Almighty. And yes, I believe that the God we know in the Bible is the God of Judaism (bit thick if I didn't think that, what with having the Old Testament telling me that!) and the God of Islam. Who is Jesus? I'll go back to my Anglican upbringing and recite from the book of Common Prayer: the vicar will say this
Also a set response is::
God so loved the world
that he gave his only Son Jesus Christ
to save us from our sins,
to be our advocate in heaven,
and to bring us to eternal life.
Jesus is clearly not the Father, who we know to be the almighty God. Yes, he is the Son of God and, if we think in terms of species, he's the same species as God (like we're humans and there are angels... and there is God. And His Son, who logically has to be god too, but isn't the same person, just as I'm human and you're human but we're not the same person.) but isn't the same person.:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is,
seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
Also just read other posts here, this is something I was brought up with and always believed. How is Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father (something I sang every other week in my late teens) and also the Father? Doesn't make sense. I do believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost - so in that sense believe in the Trinity - but it's more a species thing than same person thing. Species with the same personality, but just cos we don't have it on Earth doesn't mean that the most perfect of beings wouldn't be the same, personality wise.
Evolution is not a proven theory. Widely accepted, yes. Proven, no.
And it actually presents some insurmountable theological difficulties that you can not reconcile with the Bible. Was there death before the fall into sin? The Bible says no, and bases other doctrines on that fact. (death entered the world through one man's sin, and eternal life comes through one Man's perfect obedience.... etc.)
Genesis 1 is not written as poetry. It is historical narrative. When God says "there was evening and there was morning, the first day...." that's what he means. Why question it?
For me, the question is "who am I going to believe." Either I accept that the Bible, in it's entirety is true, or I can start chopping it up and accepting what I like and leaving what I don't. If I start leaving some parts out, or adjusting them to fit what men have said, then it is no longer the standard for truth. Science is. Or scientific theories. Or human opinion. I will not put my faith in any of those. For me, that's part of believing in God. I believe he is who has revealed himself to be in his Word, and I believe that everything he has said in his Word is true and trustworthy. That's why I personally can not accept theistic evolution.
Was there death before the Fall? Well, we know that for mankind there wasn't death before the Fall. What about other animals? I reckon that we are special, which is why there was no death for us. Animals? It's only logical that they died. Look at fossils. They were alive and now they're not LOOOOONG before the Fall happened.
Can someone tell me how evolution is yet to be proved? By us mutating into X-Men? Doesn't work like that. I had a big problem accepting evolution until I understood what it was actually about. I don't think it could have happened at all without God, but I can see how it happens today and has happened over the last few million years. OK, so one brand-new life form has evolved in the last 200 years only, and that was a hybrid grass. But look at bacteria. Whole new species can evolve in a lab in mere years. Without humans tinkering with the genome. It's adaption. I think that God did give us evolution so we could adapt to the world that we created (which is different to the world God created for us, because we've messed it up a fair bit). I think that is a gift of love. He could have made us static and unable to cope outside of Eden. No, my God loves the world so much that He ensured we'd survive until at least His Son arrived, and allowing evolution seems to me like the best way.
BTW, I'm often curious about how far back time-wise I could go and still be viable with another "human". I wonder if I went back to the time of Noah whether I would be able to have children with the people then, or if we've changed (evolved) too much. Which means that either we're not human or they weren't, which is a whole 'nother exciting thing to consider!
I think the problem - at least in my humble opinion - is that evolution is taught in schools as being the goo to human kind, as opposed to simple adaptation to ones environment. I know that until the other thread, I flatly refused anything to do with evolution, because I know I didn't come from a monkey or any other animal. BUT I can understand that environmental factors do impact on us - you put it really well LZ, about it being God's love that allows us to adapt rather than being made for the only place on Earth that we'll never find by ourselves.
I had a whole big 'discussion' with DH a while ago, based on the premise that Adam and Eve wouldn't have had belly buttons, as they were created and not born attached to an umbilical cord. I raised my own theory that they also wouldn't have required a 'back passage' while they were in Eden and therefore perfect, because that is used to rid the body of waste products. And if your body is perfect, and you're only eating perfect foods in perfect portions - what waste would there be? :)
It's interesting to wonder about how different Adam & Eve were to what we are now - our bodies seem capable of functioning with tonsils, appendix, gall bladder and even spleen in some cases, but Jehovah would have created them with a purpose, they wouldn't have just been superfluous. So I wonder what their designed function was in the beginning?
I think there's a huge difference between evolution and adaptation.
I don't know if I've said this elsewhere on BB, but evolution involves pain, death, survival of the fittest. My bible records God as saying things were good at the end of each day. So with evolution, at the end of that 'day' where somehow life evolves from molecular form to a cow, for example, with all the struggles, mutations and violence along the way...and then God says that it is good, as in perfect. I'm not sure about that really.
While I think it can be beneficial to think on these things, to try and have a better understanding of our faiths, I try to be careful not to get too hung up on these things. For me, as a Christian, the most important thing is love, to love others and love God, and I've seen too many people get really grotty at each other because they get bogged down in these matters. So while I find it interesting, and I know of people who have found their lives significantly changed when their beliefs on creation/evolution changed, I don't base my faith on evolution vs 7 day creation. I believe God created, and while I have my own personal view that I consider to be not entirely uneducated, I don't claim to have inside knowledge any further than what my holy book teaches.
I had a real struggle in coming to terms with the account in genesis about this 'curse':
Gen 3:16 “To the woman he said: ‘I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children..."
When i originally read the text, like most people, I assumed it was saying that God had deliberately imposed childbirth pain as a punishment on eve.
However, the context of this passage is really focusing on the effects of 'sin' So its actually due to sin that women would find childbirth increasingly difficult and more painful. This is because our bodies have been deteriorating since the creation of Adam and Eve and with that deterioration comes more physical ailments which would cause problems for the complicated processes of pregnancy and childbirth. Just look at the number of miscarriages for example...this is pregnancy gone wrong due to genetics.
Im sure that Eve experienced some discomfort, but certainly nothing like what we experience today. If you've ever seen animals give birth im sure you'd agree that they do not appear to experience great pain like us.
In terms of evolution, if evolution is supposed to be 'improving' on nature, then surely human childbirth is an example where evolution is not really doing what its theorized to do.
So many interesting discussion points!
I think evolution is about change to better fit the environment, not just improvement, and the only real evolution humans have achieved in the last thousand or so years is to get bigger and have larger brains, which is an improvement for aspects of our survival...but like any adaptaption it walks a thin line between improvement and hindrance, because bigger people/babies mean a more difficult labour. Added to this is the obesity, and general poor fitness of many people and you have more complicated births than people thousands of years ago.
I am struggling with this notion of evolutionary theory being debatable...perhaps it's my atheist tendencies. I just cannot see past the archeological evidence. And what about dinosaurs? Where do they fit in?
I think as humans, we tend to want all the answers to everything NOW. I don't deny the existence of the dinosaurs, it would be a bit silly to do so given the overwhelming evidence. But I also don't feel the need to create a theory to explain it. Some scientists have theorized that, given the Garden of Eden would only have covered a fairly small amount of area in the beginning, there was more than enough room for dinosaurs to have lived at the same time as Adam and Eve, but God kept them away from Eden. Science actually supports that theory, with the snap frozen bodies of woolly mammoths being found with tropical vegetation in their mouths and stomachs. So they could have been used by Jehovah as a means of keeping the lush, tropical vegetation in check until the human population increased so much that the borders of Eden needed to be extended.
It's also important to remember that science and the Bible have gone head to head before, and the Bible has proven true. Centuries before Gallileo, the Bible talked about 'the circle of the earth'. Centuries before Newton, the Bible said the earth was 'hanging upon nothing', rather than on the back of 4 elephant and a turtle. And centuries before the discovery of DNA, the Bible mentioned a baby, screened off inside his mother, who's parts were already down in writing.
Just because we don't understand HOW something worked, doesn't make it untrue :)
evolutionary science is highly debated even among evolutionists. Take the example of the dinosaurs....do you know how many differing theories there are among scientists about how they died?:
some say they died due to disease others say it was volcanic dust, others claim it was a meteorite or comet...some say it was due to continental drift, some say climate change, some believe it was genetic...the list of different opinions on the subject is almost endless. The reason is simply because the fossils themselves in no way provide any such 'facts' about the dinosaurs. Scientists can speculate on them but thats about it.
Yes, dinosaurs existed. The bible doesnt say that they didnt exist so there is no reason to believe that the existence of dinosaurs is contrary to creationism. I guess the question about them is 'did they evolve or were they created?'
The fossil record shows that they appear suddenly (as all other life does)... they aparently dont have links to earlier life according to many paleontologists. To my mind, that evidence in itself leans toward creation.
Here are my thoughts on fossils and creation:
Fossils simply show that there have been creatures who died and were buried suddenly, before they could decompose normally. In fact, some were buried in the midst of childbirth - I've seen pictures of a half born creature fossilized with it's mother. To me, the fossil record is one of the best evidences of a global flood - millions of creatures killed and buried in an enormous catastophe.
The fossil record also does not show ANY transitional creatures. Sure, "missing links" are found from time to time, but they have all been proven false after further research. That part generally doesn't make the news. The missing links are still missing. So, once again, the existance of fossils does not support evolution.
The only debatable point is the age of the fossils. Radio-carbon dating gives figures of millions and billions of years for many fossils. However, we have no way to determine whether these numbers are accurate. We assume that carbon decays at the same rate over time, but we don't KNOW it for sure. We are incapable of measuring the behaviour of carbon isotopes over millions of years. So there's one question about the accuracy of radio-carbon dating.
Also, when Mt. St. Helens erupted, fossils were created. There is a fossilized miners' helmet which has been discovered. It carbon dated at millions of years old. It was, in fact, a few decades old.
I also understand that it is often assumed that a fossil is a certain number of years old, based on the kind of rock it is found in. And we assume that the rock is a certain number of years old based on the kind of fossils that are in it, and where they fit in the evolutionary time frame. A bit of circular reasoning.
Finally, the fossil record actually supports the idea of dinosaurs and fully-formed humans co-existing. There is a fossilized footprint of a human, within a footprint of a dinosaur. There are also cave drawings of dinosaurs, and I believe that the legends of dragons and creatures like that, that are common in many places of the world are based human contact with dinosaurs long ago.
I have no problem believing that God created dinosaurs right along side of men. They were likely on the ark, with everything else. (The average dinosaur was about the size of a sheep, by the way, and Noah would certainly not have taken mature adults of the huge ones - young ones would have been smaller.) And, they may well have mostly died out in the climate changes that followed the flood, or some other circumstance. Species are being lost daily on the earth - becoming extinct for one reason or another. No reason to doubt that the same thing didn't happen to the dinosaurs.
One of the things I found most amusing in my university studies of geology - they could use various different forms of radioactive isotope (it's not all carbon) decay to date rocks. They could take rocks formed at a known date due to volcanic eruption and they would date at millions or billions of years old. And yet geologists still trusted it to date other rocks!
I've seen pictures of gold chains found in the middle of coal seams.
Like cricket, I have no issues believing the earth is only around 6000 years old. I have no issues believing dinosaurs existed. I have no issues believing that fossils were created suddenly and rapidly in a global, catastrophic flood.
I do have serious issues trusting the dating methods that suggest the earth is billions of years old. I have serious issues believing in evolution.
I won't claim to have all the answers. I'm happy to trust that God knows and one day when we join Him we will also know (or it will become irrelevant!). I would much rather believe the bible is literal fact than be responsible for deciding which bits are fact and which are just poetry - that would be an absolutely enormous responsibility and one I don't feel qualified for!
BW
As an environmental scientist and ecologist I find the notion of "believing" in evolution kind of strange. Darwin's theory of evolution forms the basis of all our knowledge about biodiversity at genetic, species and ecosystem level. This knowledge is how endangered species, populations and communities are managed. It's not like there is an alternative view, or another way of doing it, this is it!
For example, if you have three isolated populations of an endangered species you need to decide whether those populations are genetically distinct from each other and if they are beyond the point of no return in terms of number of individuals in each population. Once you have researched these two questions you can now make decisions about whether to mix the populations or keep them separate all with the ultimate aim of maintaining maximum genetic and species diversity. All our knowledge about this has come from Darwin's theory of evolution. To me it's not "just some crazy theory", it is a set of incredibly important and practically applied information that helps us as humans manage our impact on species and ecosystems, so we don't create even more chaos and destruction than we already have.
And in terms of artificial selection, you only have to look at the vast array of domestic breeds of animals to see that in action. I head somewhere that pug dogs have less genetic diversity than the critically endangered panda! :o
Thanks for your view Epacris - its interesting to see it from a scientists point of view!
In regards to using Darwinian Theory as a base for current environmental protocols - humans have had all kinds of theories over the centuries that have proven to be, not only wrong, but actually detrimental. Only a couple of hundred years ago we were still bleeding people to let heat out if they had a fever. Doctors used to do their rounds accompanied by a nurse with a single towel, which the doctor would use to dry his hands after examining each patient, leading to cross contamination, infection, and more often than not, death. And for decades, doctors have been working with the theory of 'give them a pint of blood and they'll be fine', and we're only just starting to learn how harmful THAT one can be!
Scientific theories are based on current human understanding - and as we progress as a race, we learn more about ourselves, and our environment. This often make us look back and go 'Wow, I can't believe we used to believe that - how naive!'
On the other hand, the Bible has never been wrong - the only problem comes when Man tries to put his own interpretation on it. It has a 100% track record, which is more than enough for me :)
With evolution, like I said, I think that evolution and adaptation are two different things. I believe, like with breeding pug dogs, that we can lose genetic information to bring out certain traits in species. I believe things have changed through adaptation and mutation. I'm not sure about brand new genetic information that's never existed before evolving into being.
Is that incompatible with what you do Rachel? (*adds curious and not challenging emotion here*)
Thanks for your kind and warm acknowledgment Berenice. :hug:
Yeah sure, we're are always learning and discovering new things but taking your medical example.... Throwing out "On the Origin of Species" for ecologists, would be like throwing out "Gray's Anatomy" for the medical profession.
Nelle, you are one of the kindest and gentlest people I know, you'd have to be a very hard nut to take something you said the wrong way. But I'll have to think about my answer, it's complicated (of course) and I'm not sure where to start. I'll BBL. :hug:
Well you see Nelle, a mutation is brand new genetic information. Every time genes recombine they make little mistakes, mutations, this (as well as the actual recombination itself) is what creates genetic diversity. Within a randomly breeding population individuals will be different from each other. If environmental conditions change in some way (for example there is a new predator or disease or there is a change in the climate) the more variation there is within a population the higher the chance that some individuals will have characteristics that will help them survive in the changed conditions. All individuals that do not have the required characteristic do not successfully breed (or survive) and pass on their genes. A new population that exists in the changed conditions is founded by individuals that had the characteristic that was required for successful survival and reproduction, because they are the ones that passed on their genetic information.
If one species is split into multiple populations they may be experiencing different environmental conditions that drive this adaptation. Over a very long period of time, these different populations can become different species. Before they become different species there are lots of steps along the way and this is what I have experience in working with, distinct populations, subspecies, forms, varieties. Provence is a huge issue in the bush regeneration industry. When you revegetate an area, from where do you get the plant material you need to propagate the plants? How much material do you take to maximise genetic diversity? How can you ever hope to replicate a natural ecosystem (unfortunately, we can't even begin to come close but that's a whole other story :( ). At least by having an understanding of our ecological impact, we can understand how precious and irreplaceable the biodiversity that we have left is.
Ahhh far out Nelle, I fear I have made absolutely no sense at all. :doh:
And I just wanted to reiterate that for me evolution is not a belief, it just is. To me, saying "Do you believe in evolution?" would be like saying to a medical professional "Do you believe in Gray's Anatomy?".
But what if these mutations are just products of an imperfect world? We are not how Jehovah created us - even evolutionary theory agrees with that - so who's to say these different breeds and genetic variety aren't simply accidents, never intended to exist when Jehovah created the world?
I don't wanna come across as argumentative, I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation - even if its giving me a headache :)
Berenice, I dunno :dunno: I TBH I don't really understand what you're talking about? :redface: Sorry. I'm just sharing, with anyone who is reading, my experience as a bushland manager (and teacher) and how endangered species, populations and ecosystems are managed. And I guess I would also like to say that I live and breathe this, I have dedicated my life and career to it. I'm happy to answer any questions, I’m not taking anything as argumentative, just genuinely interested. :hug:
Epacris - glad to have you join the discussion!
Now I'm not a scientist, but I do read.
I know that its not just Christians that dont agree with the theory of evolution - there are many credible scientists who have put their hand up to say they disagree with Darwin's theory.
What about "Icons of Evolution" - a book that debunks a lot of things that Darwin's theory are based on? (and I know there are many more!)
I understand that different people have different opinions on what 'evolution' really means, but if we are talking about Darwinism - it says that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago, that every new species that has ever appeared can be explained by descent with modification. That hasn't been proven!
Epacris, it seems to me that evolution on that level is fine. But taking evolution as life spontaneously sprang out of the primordial soup and bacteria single-celled organisms suddenly became far more comples and humans descended from apes is a bit more... Extreme, I guess. The earlier one I would call adaptation - the differences are relatively small. The differences some claim in life evolving from nothing are huge and just implausible to me. I can accept one, I cannot accept the other.
BW
SS - Sure there is an alternative view to evolution out there, and in science even (ETA: I mean on the fringes of science, mainstream science has never accepted any alternative (such as creationism) to evolution), but in my professional experience, as an ecologist there isn't, not even a tiny little hint of it. What we know about conserving biodiversity and managing endangered, species, populations and ecological communities, based on Darwin's theory of evolution, is taken for granted, not even questioned, not for one second, it just is. I'm not making any value judgements about this, I'm just telling you how it is. :hug:
ETA: Just to clarify, I'm speaking professionally here. What people believe personally is completely up to them. I probably didn't need to say/clarify that, I just wanted to be crystal clear on that point. :D
BW - OK, sure. :hug:
Thanks Rach. :hug: I will have to do some more study on mutation, my biology is a bit rusty. It does sound to me that what you're talking about, species passing on genes to ensure survival of future generations - is adaptation.
Sorry if we're confusing. Obviously while the facts are the same, theory about the facts is going to be different based on people's different world views (by Jehovah, Berenice means God, if that was part of the confusion).
It's OK Nelle, I get it now, BW's explanation is good. You (I mean that somewhat collectively but not in any way accusingly ;) ) can accept the adaptation bit, but you don't accept that adaptation goes so far as the creation of new species. Sure. :hug:
Hmm, I'm not sure if I would put it that way either....
I believe that God created humans. I believe that God created animals. I believe that, due to imperfection, there are mutations, and there are also adaptations, whether that be from imperfection as well, or whether it was something God 'put' in us after Eden.
But I don't believe that monkeys evolved into humans. This goes back to the Ark thread, about God not necessarily needing 2 of every single species on earth in the Ark - there would only have needed to be 2 of every KIND of animal, not including the ones who wouldn't be adversely affected by the Flood. Then, relying on adapation and mutation and cross breeding, accidental or otherwise, we would get all the animals we have today. Am I making any sense at all? Probably not, its Friday and I can't be bothered any more ;)
And I'm really sorry if I have upset you Rach - I forget that scientists can be just as emotional over scientific theory as I can be over biblical teachings :hug:
Oh 'ya dag Berenice, no, no, no I was not upset at all, I didn't mean to give that impression. :redface: But yes, I am passionate! :D
Thanks, as always, everyone for sharing. :D :hug:
TD - get the book...
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? by Jonathan Sarfati
if you keen to find out or ask some more questions let me know...
Just butting in here cos I think it's fascinating.
From what I've read recently, the idea isn't that humans evolved from monkeys or apes, but that we evolved from a common ancestor, we adapted to different environments and different requirements. Given how long ago it was though, it's difficult finding enough evidence (fossils, old stone works etc). It's not too dissimilar to how foxes and wolves evolved from a common ancestor. Now they cannot interbreed, due to the level of mutation, but there is still commonality. I think humans and chimpanzees share about 95% common DNA.
For instance, it's the development of the brain and the opposing thumb that lead humans to become what we are today. Apes have the opposing thumb, but not the brain. Though apparently elephants have a better brain, but not the opposing thumb :)
Also, something there is scientific proof of is that all human beings are descended from 1 woman who lived in what's now eastern Kenya over 60,000 years ago (they call her Eve). I sent my DNA off once to have my genetic history taken and it showed the root taken by my mitocondrial (sp) DNA - from Africa, to northern Europe (like so many others). Check out this site:
https://genographic.nationalgeograph...hic/index.html
I'm in the middle of watching "The Human Journey" which looks at human migration out of Africa. The current theory is that the continents were closer 60,000 years ago and people walked out of Africa, across what is now the Red Sea to the Arabian peninsula and lived for a while in an area caled "Eden". That's as far as I've got, so will be interesting to watch more of it.
BBL
Tashybabe, you speak my thoughts exactly. I loved that series!
I was just about to ask people's reaction to the genetic theories about common ancestry dating back to Africa. I think the genetic support for evolutionary theory is quite compelling, by tracing mtDNA.