Posted on 01/12/2005 8:00:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
humanists would be dumbstruck without their "special events," wouldn't they?
I honestly don't think any of you have *really* read Genesis. Read just the first 3 chapters and tell me that it's compatible with evolution. Note the words "kind," note that Adam was formed from dust first, and then Eve was created from his rib. Note that the grass was created before the sun. How does :rested on the seventh day" compatible with evolution? Genesis 2:6 talks about how foliage was watered (not by rain, by the way). Where did Noah's Flood come from? And so on....
>>Why do you correlate smartness with feebleness?<<
I don't. I just like to exploit stereotypes. 8^>
Funny thing is, though, that most people are endowed pretty much equally. That is, A guy whos brain is extremely adept at hand eye coordination (gifted three point shooter) is usually less so in the study of fluid dynamics.
The converse tends to be true as well.
Another truth I have observed, especially in women, is that the more beautifull they are (universally accepted), the less they have had to depend on attributes other than their physical appearance to get what they want in life. I am talking "natural" beauty here, not plastic surgery and silicone, which weren't available back "in the day."
Oh, and neither were Zig Ziegler or Brian Tracy.
The parents of cave kids weren't particularly adept at the higher concepts of long term goal setting and motivational teaching - it was about getting what you want and, at it's core, survival.
It was not until the last hundred years or so that raw survival was not first and formost in the minds of most human beings that inhabited this planet. It is still first and formost for most, come to think about it.
But you gotta love that comment about evolution working "extra hard," heh, heh.
Funny you should mention viruses.
Native Americans had no defense against viruses unlike the Europeans who had been struggling with them for some time and had evolved resistances. Viruses wiped out entire tribes, leaving the Europeans with strength of numbers and allowing them to take over easier. In other words, a form of natural selection.
Scripture has God creating the sun, moon, and stars the day *after* he created the grass and trees. It takes a lot of faith to believe Scripture, but if you do believe it, then it's laughably incompatible with evolution.
Another thing is this "firmament." Evolution doesn't talk about a water canopy (which seems to have fallen during the Great Flood), but Scripture does.
The more you study the first few chapters of Genesis, the more it's laughably different from standard theories of evolution. You need to laugh at either the Scriptural account, or the Evolutinists' account.
This is also treating speciation as a black/white issue. One prediction that evolution makes is that there should be cases where it is difficult to determine if a new species has formed or not. For example, are chihuahuas and great danes the same species? One widely used definition of species is that two organisms are the same species if they can successfully interbreed. Can a female chihuahua really successfully mate with a male great dane? Can it successfully give birth to great dane/chihuahua hybrid pups? It is questionable as to whether this could occur or not. It also points out another weakness of this definition of species, namely that the ability to interbreed is not a transitive property. That is given that organism A can interbreed with organism B and that organism B can interbreed with organism C, it is not strictly true that organism A can necessarily interbreed with organism C. (think of A=chihuahua, B=some medium sized breed of dog, C=great dane) Would organisms A and C be the same species or different ones? Going strictly by the successful interbreeding definition, they are not. There are several examples of this phenomenon, and it is exactly what we would expect if evolution is the mechanism that produces new species.
I don't think such things correlate at all. A gifted 3-point shooter is exactly as likely as anyone else in the population to be gifted at fluid dynamics too (though he may get less chance to show it and have less reason to work his academic skills up to their potential because of the marketability of his ball skills)
Some of the smartest people I've ever met were also good athletes.
That is one of the errors that will be eliminated once laws requiring textbook accuracy are eliminated. It has been discovered, much to the embarrassment of evolutionists, that the moths are nocturnal and are not found on tree trunks during the day. They were glued there for a faked photo. But even if it were not faked, evolutionists have conceded it is not evidence for evolution.
Also, the fossil record shows many examples of evolution. Species appear and disappear in the fossil record throughout time. The Creation story doesn't explain that.
The flood explains the fossil record better than evolution. Evolution expects the record to show gradual change over time with intermediate forms. Creation predicts fully formed organisms and no intermediate forms. The flood would leave mass graves of rapidly buried and often disarticulated organisms. Evolution has no adequate mechanism for explaining the mass graves. Creation would anticipate polystrate fossils. Evolution is at a loss. Creation does not have "out of place artifacts". They are a constant problem for uniformitarians.
Decades ago I was an evolutionist like you. My biggest objection to special creation was the supposed fossil men. Upon closer investigation it became apparent that the missing link is still missing. Of course you will be told that there aren't any missing links, as my anthropology teacher insisted, yet there isn't any evidence stronger than speculation to support the evolution of man. If there were, evolution would be a fact and have public support, which it isn't and doesn't.
If evolution were true, the textbooks wouldn't need to promote the peppered moth hoax. If evolution were true, evolutionists wouldn't need to fabricate evidence to support it.
Since according to the theory of evolution, natural selection requires millenia to perform its magic, then I would say the point is moot since neither I nor you will be around on this earth to believe anything at that point. :)
While I believe that it is "possible" that God created the earth through the process of evolution, like someone already said, it's hard to imagine God creating a human being like Adam that way.
If you study creation science, all of the "proof" of evolution actually has been responded to and debunked.
I am not an expert on the subject myself, but there are books that go into the many points of evolution and offer a creation response.
One specifically I remember is that carbon dating, which is used to back up the idea that the earth is billions of years old, has also been used on articles of which the specific age is known. The carbon dating method gave results that were false.
Creation Science explains that carbon dating works by determining the amount of carbon in the item. This does not take into acount the fact that most things arleady contain carbon.
Another evidence used to back up evolution, is the layers of earth and the fossils found in those layers. However, if you believe in the Biblical account of the flood, those layers are also easily explained.
There is also signifigant lack of a fossil trail from ape to man (the so-called missing link). It's hard to imagine that if evolution were true, at least one of these inbetween creatures about to evolve into a human being would not have been found.
The fossil trail that has been found is believed to have been created from parts of different creatures.
A little research and an open mind and study of creation science may change your mind.
I'm not arguing that women choose men by their IQ. I'm saying they prefer men who are wealthy and powerful. Wealth and power are going to correlate with brainpower, even if their are exceptions.
The capacity to survive the total annihilation of the planet is only an evolutionary advantage if the planet is actually totally anihilated. Barring this, those species that are most successful at reproducing, given their actual environment are the ones that are the "pinnacle of evolution." By that measure, the sauropods were very successful until their environment changed radically. It is easy to imagine an environment in which humans would not be particularly successful. For example, if tommorrow a full blown nuclear war were to start, with nuclear detonations occurring over the majority of land masses of the earth, it would be the cockroaches, not humans, that prove to be the most successful species, since humans aren't particularly well suited to environments with high levels of radioactivity. (not to mention that it would be humans themselves who caused the environmental change that leads to their demise, not the hallmark of an extremely successful species.) Furthermore, in terms of evolutionary success, it isn't humans that are the most successful organisms. I can think of at least two groups of organisms (insects and bacteria) that are much more successful than huamns in terms of their ability to propogate the species.
If you believe this, and you want to believe the bible, then you are setting yourself up for a lot of mockery. A strict literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny.
So is it more about money and power or intelligence? I always thought the physical aspect was important, you know, big, healthy strong men were more desirable to try to produce healthy offspring.
Thanks for the ping!
Yeah, 'cause us modern types are still confounded by ol' Xeno's arrow...
I think women are wired to find successful men attractive. Success in a hunter-gatherer society might mean a smart, strong hunter who is capable of bringing home the mammoth. Success in today's society might mean a lawyer or doctor.
You and I think a lot alike. I was astounded when I was in my early 20s to *really learn* about creation as described in Genesis and as further illustrated by creation scientists. Amazing how cohesive it is once you shed your prejudice against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.