Bruce, I think it's GREAT that you seem open to coming to a better understanding of the science behind evolution. I wish more people with a "creationist bent" (if you will) would do the same.
You really CAN believe in God and evolution....... On Nov 18, 2007 12:46 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you are welcome. I do not have time at the moment to read what Jim > said, but it looks as though he has taken some time to answer this > question. I'll try to get to it later but first I need to go write > some stuff that I have been putting off for a while. If more questions > arise I will try to answer them if nobody else has. > > The very brief answer I have for this, which for lack of time I have > not verified anywhere and could therefore be wrong in the details, is > that remains have in fact been found which are suggestive of a common > ancestor. > > However, remember that we are talking about REALLY OLD remains, so > very special conditions have to exist for even a skeleton to be found > today. Add to this the fact that that long ago the population was very > small, and we are doing well to have the few bones we do. They may not > convince you, but people who do this full-time seem pretty certain > that they are on the right track with this ;) > > Healthy skepticism is a good thing though.... otherwise we would all > still be trying to balance our internal humors ;) > > Dana > > > On 11/17/07, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana, > > First of all thank you for your politeness. That was my intent when I > > announced that I had to take care of personal business, and then get > back to > > this business of evolution. Apparently someone thought that they were > more > > important than me taking care of my personal business. And thanks to > Adam > > for not treating me like an idiot. Your post was very intelligent and I > am > > absorbing it. > > > > This ancestral theory that you are saying still does not totally > convince > > me. If we are related to primates (which on the surface is not hard to > > believe since primates and humans are very similar at the genetic > level), > > then where is this primate that we are decedents of? This is what I am > > talking about. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. Obviously I > > need to study up on this some more, but right now, with what I have read > it > > makes perfect sense to me that if we did descend from a common species, > > there should be some proof of this common species. And if there is and I > > have missed it, please guide me to where I can read about this. > > And again I am not saying that we are here because of ID or anything > like > > that. Like I said, although I read the bible, go to church and bible > study, > > I am still not totally convinced that God merely wished the world to > exist > > and it did. Yes there is proof that some events in the bible occurred, > but I > > am having an issue with the whole blind faith thing. > > So as you can see I am still on the fence about all of this. I want to > learn > > as much about both sides of the argument, and although I am not as smart > as > > some of you, I am intelligent, I just tend to work at a slower pace than > > others. > > So if someone was to ask me today how we got here, I would honestly have > to > > answer I don't know; I am still trying to understand that myself, and I > only > > hope that someday I will. Until then I will just enjoy each day, maybe > even > > practice radical happiness or something, I don't know. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 2:55 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Great press for Our Lord and Savior > > > > I was waiting to see what Mr "there's no excuse for not responding" > > had to say, but I guess he wandered off. > > > > Bruce, I think you are wrong, but let me see if I understand you. > > Because I think we may be dealing with what No Child Left Behind did > > to biology classes. > > > > You're saying that there should be an intermediate species between men > > and monkeys if evolution is true? I am not making fun of you (and I > > may be the only person in this thread that isn't). If you're asking a > > serious question, I'll give you a serious answer. > > > > This is not a stupid question, but it stems from a misunderstanding of > > what the theory of evolution actually says. According to this theory, > > chimpanzees and gorillas and men stem from a common primate ancestor. > > So men are not descended from monkeys -- they are cousins to monkeys, > > kinda. > > > > The idea is that if we are in an environment where say a lot of fur > > increased the odds of living long enough to reproduce -- as it might > > at high altitude dor instance - then you'll get a lot lot of furry > > individuals breeding together and their children will tend to be > > furrier. That'sa really simplistic example, but that's it in a > > nutshell. > > > > Does that help? It may for instance, give you an inkling that your > > question does not have an actual answer, not because it is a good > > question, but because it isn't. > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Check out the new features and enhancements in the latest product release - download the "What's New PDF" now http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/coldfusion/cf8_beta_whatsnew_052907.pdf Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:246702 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
