Do you believe in evolution or what your holy book says?

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.

Okay ladies.... Can we change the topic? I have another question to ask, which i have been meaning to ask for ages, but i thought it might offend people. If you are offended...i am deeply sorry.

Muhammed (PBUH) died of natural causes (old age). Muhammed (M) battled in many holy wars during his life, and all his followers protected him. I just wanted to ask, why didn't Jesus' followers stand up for him and allowed him to be crucified?

The simplistic answer is that if Jesus wasn't cricified, then he would not have been able to rise from the dead.

I guess there's so many questions on that topic and I guess the simple answer is that it was necessary to fulfill God's plan.

When Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane one of the disciples picked up a sword and chopped off the ear of one of the soldiers - Jesus told him to put the sword away. The relevant passage in the bible if you want to look it up is found in Matthew 26.

BW

actually TD they did!
Matthew 26:50-54 in the bible says -

50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

and also in Luke 22

49When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

oops - was typing as BW posted!!

:

---

Muhammed (PBUH) died of natural causes (old age). Muhammed (M) battled in many holy wars during his life, and all his followers protected him. I just wanted to ask, why didn't Jesus' followers stand up for him and allowed him to be crucified?

---

One thing you may not understand about Jesus is that before he was a man, he was a heavenly angel....Gods foremost angel....Gods first created being. From heaven, God sent Jesus to earth to be born as a man in order to sacrifice himself.

His sole purpose was to die for the sins of mankind so that mankind could be reunited with God. So, Jesus would not have wanted his followers to try and save him, rather he allowed himself to be unjustly convicted of a crime he did not commit in order to achieve his purpose.

This is why christians are told that thru their faith in Jesus sacrifice, they can gain salvation. That salvation is spoken about by Mohammad, you would know of it as 'paradise' The bible also speaks of it as a paradise, but one that will be established right here on earth by Gods doing.

Fair question TD :)

At the time, I guess they just weren't strong enough in their belief that he was the Messiah. Don't forget, for many years they had been 'shepherded' by spiritual leaders who placed more importance on position and status than the spiritual needs of the people. When Jesus came, he displayed them as the power hungry, selfish men they were, and they didn't like it. By this time they had such a strong hold on the people that it wouldn't have taken much to turn a crowd against him. I believe that the people who follow the Jewish faith today don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the account of the Hebrews leaving Egypt, but even after witnessing the 10 plagues, as well as the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, the Hebrews still continued to forget Jehovah, which is why He ended up leaving them. So instead of having the fleshly nation of Israel, He instituted the spiritual Israel, and this time only those who chose it became His.

But long story short, what BW said :)

TD - recommend the dvd or book
"The Case for Christ" - Lee Strobel

Hey TD, what are you doing, I've only just joined this thread and now it's gone way off where I was at... and I hadn't finished. :p :lol:

What I really want to say is, what I find so puzzling, as a scientist, is that science keeps getting drawn into all this religion stuff. Like I said, as a scientist, out in the field, in the practical application of our knowledge, based on Darwin's theory of evolution, religion doesn't even enter into it. It is completely irrelevant. There are no "alternative" ideas. Science is science and religion is religion. Science is absolutely not a form of religion, it's science.

I think atheists (which I guess I am calling a type of religion) in their arguments with religion have used science to counter creationism (and other ideas of that sort). And of course I am totally opposed to the teaching of creationism in science, it's not science it's religion. I am passionate about freedom of religion, by all means teach and believe whatever you want to believe, I fully support your in that (unless you're a destructive cult, but that's another thread).... in religion. But any religious teachings, in my humble but very passionate opinion, have no place in science.

Oh OK, I just thought I'd add, I had a quick conservation with DH, who is also a scientist/ecologist (see I do live and breathe this stuff all day every day :lol: )and he doesn't agree with me on this at all... so just reiterating again, this is just my personal opinion. :hug:

Rachel with the whole Science is Science and Religion is Religion thing - my faith is sort of different to that. It's more a world view. My faith in God is how I understand the world. It's not something I DO, it's how I think and see things, my context. So I learn about science, but always God is my context.
No idea if that makes sense. It's late at night after a long day. :lol:

Peg - your statement that Jesus was an angel gets me curious - what do you base that on?

And TD, cool question, but probably the others have basically covered it - Jesus needed to die, if he was going to pay the punishment for sin (which is what the bible teaches happened). Plus I like the idea that his followers were very human - they were afraid of dying too. Would I have stood up for Jesus if I might have died...I'm not sure. Certainly afterwards many of Jesus' disciples ended up dying because of what they shared about him. But it gives me encouragement that I can chicken/freak out sometimes and still go on to do good stuff. :lol:

I'm with Nelle on the worldview - faith is life. What I believe about God and the Bible inpacts the way I live and the way I think about everything. And really, evolutionary science works the same way. If you believe that life evolved and that humans are "high apes", it impacts the way you think about the world and everything else in life. Is human life sacred? Is there absolute truth? The answers to these and other questions have their root in your belief about the origins of life and the existance of God.

To return to the evolution thing briefly - development and speciallization within a species is evident. I'm not denying that. However, when these things happen, information is LOST. New information is not created. Diversity was possible within the genetic code of the creature, and due to environmental circumstances, individual animals with certain traits had the advantage over others, and so that trait became dominant, and the other genetic information was lost over time, or preserved in another variety of that species, living in different circumstances. I believe this is sometimes called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, in which fish become birds, for example, and new genetic information is created, is an entirely different thing, and that is what evolution is based on. I do not believe this ever happened.

As a bit of an aside, when the man who was responsible for some of the work of mapping DNA received his Nobel prize, he was asked by a reporter "Knowing what you do about DNA, where do you think life came from? Did we evolve?" His answer was something to the effect of "Aliens must have come and planted seeds of life on our planet. This could not evolve by chance." So, he was unwilling to acknowledge a creator, but he could not accept evolution either. Scientists who hint that they believe in a creator are ridiculed by their peers, and any "non-evolutionary" theory of the origin of life receives no respect and no funding. (Google "expelled: no intelligence allowed") So any other perspective is generally not heard.

About Jesus' disciples allowing him to be crucified - it's a sad illustration of human nature. We're weak people. Peter thought he could stand - he promised he would stand and die with Jesus, but when it came to the crucial moment, he fell. He denied that he even knew Jesus. Later, though, he was able to stand and preach about Jesus to hostile crowds, through the strength that God gave him. He did later die for his faith. And, as others have said, it is encouraging to me that God still calls us to follow him despite our weakness, and can still use us to serve him.

About Jesus being an angel - I believe that is the Jehovah's Witness position? I would say that Hebrews demonstrates pretty clearly that Christ is more powerful and higher than an angel. The Bible says Christ was "in very nature, God."

The whole person of who Jesus is and our relationship with him is the big sticking point on why I am not converting to the JWs! I believe that Jesus is the Son of God - he is light from light and true God from true God. An angel, even an archangel, is less than that. So therefore how could Jesus be who the Bible claims he is if he's just a mere angel?

And anyone who says Richard Dawkins hasn't turned evolution into a religion obviously hasn't read those books of his! I can see fanaticism on both sides of the argument from various people and that's why I'll defend the other side to the hilt. Personally, I can doubt carbon dated (and always have; radioactive decay isn't the greatest way to date something) and exactly HOW and WHY any amoeba would think going multicellular was a good idea, as it were - but then again, I can see how evolution happens once you do have multicellular organisms. I can see how the heart evolved. How lungs evolved. How the circulatory system happened is awesome and wonderful and that's another thing I can't see happening without God, even if I can see some of the steps.

It's a fascinating and interesting study, but I just can't believe that we started from goo with NO extra help. That just seems crazy.