If God exists.
If God created Adam and Eve.
Why their children, us, look so different in color and shape? speak and write so differently in language? live so remotely apart? and formed so many countries?

For those who believed in God, if it's not the work of evolution, what makes us so diverse in so many ways?

Sorry about not being entirley on topic but I've just thought of this after reading your post.

God cast out Adam and Eve because Eve bit an Apple...however God had no problem with Adam and Eve's offspring having marital affairs with each other to produce further offspring...isn't having sex with your sister or first cousin frowned upon by God?? Personally I think its ALOT worse then being tempted by a ripe delicious looking apple.

So basically Adam and Eve were setup to fail from the start, if it wasn't the apple then it would have been something like the above mentioned. Hmmm God sure has a strange way of showing his creation that he loves them.

(For the Simpsons fans: I'm thinking the Garden of Eden must have been somewhere near shelbyville)

dak,

Well, for the Bible literalists the answer to your question consists of the Babel tower. They would say the fable is to be understood verbatim, and just happens to explain the presense of different races, cultures, languages and countries.

Of course, such people also tend to believe in 6000 year old Earth and whatnot, so it's pretty easy to show even to them that they are full of shit. But other than the Tower story, I don't think they would have an answer.

This seems like a fairly easy problem.

Given that Adam is the first man then each of his sperm could have been given unique race related properties. Similarly each of Eve’s ova could also have been given specific race related properties. We are also told that Adam and Eve lived for many hundreds of years. If we assume that Eve remained fertile for most of that time and gave birth regularly then that could explain the creation of all the different races that we see today.

We would also have to make some assumptions concerning procreation between offspring of similar races. But this is not too difficult to understand since even today most people of a given race prefer partners of their own race. This is cultural to some extent, but many studies have shown that a large percentage of people tend to choose a partner who shares similar characteristics to themselves, e.g. height, hair color, body types, dispositions. Analysis of successful marriages show that many of these couples look like each other, it’s a natural attractiveness and distinct from cultural pressure.

Cris

Cris,

And how attractive do you find your sister/brother?

I'm not intending to pick fights here but the christain story of creation in based in some funky family fun, which the bible itself says is very taboo.

Dak,

Maybe the different races were a result of mixing the gene pool too closley...I'm kidding ofcourse :D

Cris,

Not to take this too seriously or anything, but while your proposal might work for Eve, it would not for Adam. Girls are born with a full complement of eggs and do not produce any new ones for the rest of their life, so you could potentially "hard-wire" anything into a female that way. However, sperm is constantly refreshed in human testes, and its DNA is basically derived from the male's stem cells.

So, for Adam to produce sperm of multiple races would mean that his entire phenotype would have to reflect multiple races simultaneously (because stem cells are circulated and used throughout the body) -- and not merely as a uniform mixture as would happen in a normal hybrid, but as a constellation of distinct race-specific chunks of flesh, which would make him quite a freak of nature (and I doubt a very healthy one at that.)

And so, in your scenario all the offspring would have to be hybrids of Adam's singular race and whatever was supplied by Eve. They would of course share some of Adam's features, and wouldn't be that much unlike each other.

The whole family breeding scheme has some psychological problems though. It's been long since established that in a majority of cases, growing up in close association with a person takes away any sexual attraction to that person. It's probably the beginnings of an evolved mechanism to guard against incest. So I'm afraid the "first family" would have had to actually force its children to do the nasty, because they would have been unlikely to want to do it on their own.

Looks like Adam is the one who went through endless divine treatments (a.k.a. radiation) to make sure the sperms mutated every time he mated with Eve. I can feel his pain...

Actually, excessive irradiation tends to do so much genetic damage as to make people sterile for life.

Originally posted by Boris
Actually, excessive irradiation tends to do so much genetic damage as to make people sterile for life.

Com'on, it's God we're talking about. He knows the perfect dose.

First of all, why must the question be either God or Evolution? Why can't they coexist? Who's to say that God is not the author of Evolution?

To answer your question concering why the offspring of the First Parents, if divine, are so diverse in "so many ways".

I don't know if you have children, but sublte differences occur among offspring. Those sublte differences magnified over time can create dramatic inconsistencies. Further, different cultures, languages, and skin color, if not explained with reference to the existence of Deity, exist as groups of people separate to live in different parts of the world, forced socially and genetically, eventually, to adapt to their surroundings. But this in no way dismisses the existence of a Supreme Force. (Tangent - Don't believe in a supreme force you say? Well, can you, through any power you consciously or directly control, effect Evolution? No, you can't. No one can in and of themselves. There exists a higher force than you. Does not this logically explain the existence of a Supreme Force?) I don't think, then, that your question is relevant. Of course evolution exists, God initiated it!

Evolution implies God's creations are not perfect. How dare you insulted God as someone who make mistake?

I personally don't care how you treat God. But just think about it: if everything is perfect, why do you need to change(evolve)?

First of all, why must the question be either God or Evolution? Why can't they coexist? Who's to say that God is not the author of Evolution? I have always recognized this a failure of certain theologies. Evolution has no obligation to knock divine creation out of possibility; in fact, there is no need. Bad theology knocks divine anything out of possibility.

As Dak noted, the God of the Christians has traditionally been assigned Perfect Knowledge and Immutable Will; that is, God is not wrong, and his Plan does not change. Everything is set and known.

Many people rail against the implications of determinism or, worse yet, Calvinism, inherent in such a perspective, yet if you witnessed the nearly-titanic rounds Tony1 and I fought in various threads, you might see what happened to people's regard as Catholics worked their detailed logical structure to accommodate the free will of souls. Yet, despite nearly two millennia to work out the details, even Catholocism is plagued with awful doctrinal theology.

But when we consider the difficulties of reconciling the existence of a Devil to the contradictions of theology and doctrine; when we consider the long-running assumption that acting "in the name of God" includes arbitrary human cruelty; when we examine the tendencies of evangelical Christian activists to operate via accusation (a horde of accusers) and persecutory demands; if this is the sum effect of the Gospel of Compassion, or of Reconciliation, why should we give a rat's behind how these people think they got here? If we compare the aspirations and promises of Christian faith with its working result, a horrible dichotomy arises. With no established relationship between what people claim to believe and what their guidebook declares, why should we give credit to menial insecurities regarding how special one feels in the world? Not long ago, I read the tale of the Hopi "Spider-Woman", an interesting creationary tale indeed. And the Cherokee "Great Buzzard". Of all the complaints--legitimate or not--fostered by our indigenous neighbors against Euro-American society, I must say that I've never heard that the concept of evolution violates their constitutional right to religion. To be honest, I've never even heard of a Jewish complaint to the same, for as I understand it, it would discredit the story to have unqualified goyim teaching it. (What, then, of a Hebrew law that describes the written words of holy books as permanent effects of God? There are repositories of paper and ink where old manuscripts are kept because nobody dares destroy the written incarnation of God. I am not fully educated of these details, though, but it brings to mind the notion of a civil rights charge if a student writes grafitti in a textbook and happens to mark up Hebrew holy texts.) At my Catholic high school, when directly questioned, my Junior-year biology teacher responded in a manner that I now recognize as heavily dependent on the Unmoved Mover of Greek philosophy: God created a Universe and it grew and evolved from there. In my opinion, the issue is settled that evolution poses no threat to the insecurities of religious influence. However, I am not a fundamental literalist: I am not obliged at the stake of my soul to insist on Genesis. And therein lies the key to why evolution and divine creation are so separate in modern American society (I've never met European Lutherans--I have no idea what they think of the Missouri Synod; it is wise here to limit my scope to what people I know best at this scale: Americans).

* Quite frankly, it seems to me that the first factor at play here is the stake of eternity. When the soul is on the line, all bets are toward mortal combat: fundamentalist derivations of Islam have created that situation in the mideast; fundamentalist derivations of Christianity motivate violence in the US. But to lighten up to a more relevant scale, we see the fundamentalist parent fearing for the child's soul because the child is being taught by a person the child is expected to respect ideas which the fundamentalist--being typically lesser-educated and perhaps unable to grasp the scale of the planet, much less the Universe--fears contradict God.

* Trust is a second factor. We might assert that the parent does not trust the child's judgement to oblige their self to faith. This is incorrect. What the parent does not trust is what none of us trust: the self. We do not trust ourselves. Declare it all you want; I'll believe you just to spare myself the argument. But it's what parents don't tell their children when they punish: "I have failed to communicate my expectations and the reasons they are important, therefore I am going to smack the hell out of your ass." In reality, they tell children, This is going to hurt me more than it does you, a line I was subject to only once, since they figured it didn't work when I laughed at it. How often do we get angry at someone when in reality, we're simply covering for our own failure? (In that sense, what the hell is domestic violence, if not this principle enacted?) When one hates another for their race ... well, I note a great line from V upon the landing of many alien technicians at a west-coast factory: "What's wrong, Caleb?" ...First we had to compete with you honkies for jobs, then the Mexicans, and now these guys, and they ain't even from our planet! I mean, I have watched so many race-based conflicts take place whereby there was nothing the minority could do to excuse himself to the racist: any common-sense point is dismissed by the racist as "Just like a _____" (fill in the blank with your favorite ethnic slur). What is most likely at play here is not a racist's fear that a ____ (again) will take his job, but the inward fear that the racist isn't doing his job well enough. (Okay, in the case of V, the aliens were alleged to be genetically and capably superior, so it might be a legitimate worry for Caleb; I think the point still works in the more realistic construction.) However, we see that all through life--take a look at your own--much of our anger is actually directed at ourselves, and manifested toward others. One of my personal patterns? Damn the cable company! (Of course, since it literally takes them cutting off the service to remind me that I haven't paid the bill, who do you really think I'm angry at?) Thus, as relates to the nearly-abandoned argument concerning evolution and creation: the fundamentalist parent really is afraid of their own failure to communicate the essence of faith, and can only counter that lack of trust in the self in the form of demanding that the myths of one religion be awarded the credibility of the scientific process.

Evolution does not have to contradict religion. If the religionists would shut up about it long enough, people would learn that. In the meantime, they're just hearing static about rights and equality and how much the world hates the largest known religion ever. That is, how much the world hates the most popular religion ever.

I, for one, think that evolution would present itself as harmonious with a young student's notions of God, and might even enhance that child's relationship with God, if only the religionists would quit their sniveling, and stop insisting that evolution is not harmonious with God.

To whence I began: There is no real reason that evolution should be incompatible with one's notion of God. The only reason it comes up is because certain religionists insist on the incompatibility, and insult the hell out of anyone who doesn't agree. Oh, and then they whine about being persecuted, but nobody really cares about that, so we'll leave it alone for now.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(By the way, PeeWee ... welcome to sciforums.)

Tiassa,


There is no real reason that evolution should be incompatible with one's notion of God. The only reason it comes up is because certain religionists insist on the incompatibility, and insult the hell out of anyone who doesn't agree.


I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. The problem with natural history, is that it not only walks all over the Judaic creation myth, but also all over other important myths of the Bible. For example, the Adam and Eve story. The Noah's flood story. The Tower of Babel story. And so on (actually, I'm close to exhausting my personal list -- but then I'm not as intimate with the Bible as some on this board; I'm sure there are plenty more...)

In short, if one were to one day attain the rational point of view, then pretty much all of Christianity instantly transforms into nothing but a cultural tradition of entirely human origins (for example, as far as I could tell from such of your posts as on the purity and pollution thread, you are beginning to see the anthropogenic nature of all religious prescriptions.) Just about the only supernatural thing that might be left over after such a catharsis is the presupposition of a "hands-off" Creator who touched the whole thing off and then left it to fend for itself. There's no room for souls and afterlife, and humans are no longer a pinnacle of creation but a sidenote in the history of the cosmos -- sure to be either wiped out by some catastrophy, or eclipsed in the future by something even greater.

So the day that the rational view triumphs, Christianity dies. You might say that the left-over belief in a deliberate force behind the veil of the universe should be good enough, but obviously it cannot be for someone who has bought into a great deal more than that. A belief in <u>a</u> god is no longer a Christian belief; I would even claim that in all its lonesome tentativeness and dead-end vagueness it no longer constitutes a religion per se.

In short, if one were to one day attain the rational point of view, then pretty much all of Christianity instantly transforms into nothing but a cultural tradition of entirely human origins (for example, as far as I could tell from such of your posts as on the purity and pollution thread, you are beginning to see the anthropogenic nature of all religious prescriptions.)A) You will find no argument from me. (Okay, maybe a justification or two.)

B) I am, actually, long-aware of the anthropogenic--though I admit that's a new word for me--nature of religion; because ....

C) I'm well aware that my own theistic leanings are primarily a psychological device; I do, truly prefer it. In its defense, it has little to say which it claims to be authoritative; I'm pressed to think of anything at the moment. It is no different to me than voting for fifteen candidates of the same party because what they said happens to be the nearest I can hope toward my aspirations in a given election, though without the sense of resignation. But when stars sing and the galaxy dances ... well, I quite enjoy that perception of things.

The only reasion I would argue that it is as simple as I've described it is because I'm taking several logical leaps (which I have great faith in, if the irony of that isn't just hilarious) whereby I feel it's the religionist's problem if they choose to maintain a faith that prevents them from interacting properly with reality. At the delusional or at least neurotic stake of the soul, the religionist insists.

Two cents or so, but I hope it's worth something.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Boris,

Continuing my role as a devilish advocate for the Christians, until of course they elect a more appropriate counsel.

If Adam using normal physiology, as we know it, could not have contributed to the male half of the beginnings of every race, then we are faced with either the prospect that Adam was some type of freak, and there is no evidence for that, or God had to intervene at the fertilization phase each time. And if God had to intervene each time, and in such a fundamental manner then Adam’s seeds really would have had to have been completely nullified. In this case God would have acted as a perfect contraceptive (Catholics should take notes here), but only in the sense that Adam’s sperm would never have been allowed to fulfill their mission. But Eve would still have to become pregnant each time, so God would have to have provided the vital components. Kinda sets the precedent for virgin (maybe semi-virgin) births I suppose.

As for incest: Now really, what do you think these first early adolescents are going to do? Their siblings are the only game in town, so maybe they don’t find each other very attractive, but man, don’t you think those powerful urges are going to find a productive outlet. It’s not as if they can find alternatives in a nearby town. Once the first bout has been completed we would be into cousins, I think, actually I’m not quite sure what one would call the offspring from incestuous couplings. But anyway couplings between cousins should offer no real problems; heck cousins have been marrying even right up to the 20th century.

And remember God is going to be lurking around making sure his plans work as expected, even if it is was just to encourage the incest. He’d have to condemn the culprits to hell afterwards of course, or at least place them in line until his son arrives so hell can begin.

So there you have it, that’s how all the races began – God did it, well what else did you expect?

To add my little bit...I just started reading the bible (from start to finish). Just some FYI.
It said God made man; male and female. He made them with the animals. THEN he made Adam to be his special little buddy. And when he saw that Adam was lonely in the garden he made some animals there and said hey be buddies with them but it just wasn't the same so he made him go to sleep and took his rib and you guys know the story. Anyway, the point is, what your preacher tells you isn't necessarily how it is said. Just as what the bible says isn't necessarily, please forgive me, "God's honest truth". There are many different translations from what was, if i'm not mistaken, an arabaic or hebrew or something original text. Then there's everyone's own opinion. What is the truth? You just have to read it. I did not know that Moses...uh, I mean, NOAH...my little mistake (everyone is entitled to ONE... was instructed to take two of every kind of UNclean animal and fourteen of every kind of clean animal...or vice versa. Anyway, go ahead and pick it apart like any other reference material. I would love to see y'all use quotes from there. And Boris...you're the chillest, man. Keep doin' it right. How else could you?

you wrote:
"Just as what the bible says isn't necessarily, please forgive me, "God's honest truth". There are many different translations from what was, if i'm not mistaken, an arabaic or hebrew or something original text. Then there's everyone's own opinion. What is the truth?"

By your own words it doesn't appear to be in the bible.

P.S.
I like the idea that this almighty all loving God would create Adam as a personal Pet. It's almost consistent with everything else in that story.


Cris:

I told you the Garden of Eden was in Shellbyville.

<i>"For those who believed in God, if it's not the work of evolution, what makes us so diverse in so many ways?"</i>

This is easy. <b>It's a miracle!</b>

Well Cris,

I suppose your story might be plausible -- in which case the judaic God is the ultimate cuckoo of all time: being the real father behind Adam's back. That sneaky old bastard! :D :D

But even then, the presense of races couldn't be explained exactly. You'd have to assume that even though the children interbred, they did not cross racial lines. But that assumption doesn't hold up, as racism does not exist between close members of the same family (especially between siblings!) Racism is basically a fruit of ignorance, and growing up/living in close association with people of another race basically is the most effective antidote. Which probably means God didn't abandon his wiley ways for quite a few generations hence (the dirty old man that he is :D).

But overall, I must say that I like Bowser's answer the most: "Would you look at that, Adam, it's a bloody miracle!" :D (I wonder if that could be used as an excuse in paternity suits...)

<i>"I wonder if that could be used as an excuse in paternity suits."</i>

Are you in trouble, Boris?

Cris--If Adam using normal physiology, as we know it, could not have contributed to the male half of the beginnings of every race, then we are faced with either the prospect that Adam was some type of freak, and there is no evidence for that, or God had to intervene at the fertilization phase each time. And if God had to intervene each time, and in such a fundamental manner then Adam’s seeds really would have had to have been completely nullified.I don't know why it took a couple days to click.... Lilith!

Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels. New York: Free Press, 1967.
Lilith--in Jewish tradition, where she originated, Lilith is a female demon, enemy of infants, bride of the evil angel Sammael (Satan). She predated Eve, had marital relations with Adam, and must thus be regarded as our first parent's 1st wife. According to Rabbi Eliezer (The Book of Adam and Eve), Lilith bore Adam every day 100 children. The Zohar (Leviticus 19a) describes Lilith as "a hot fiery female who first cohabited with man" but, when Eve was created, "flew to the cities of the sea coast," where she is "still trying to snare mankind." She has been identified (incorrectly) with the screech owl in Isaiah 34:14. In the cabala she is the demon of Friday and is represented as a naked woman whose body terminates in a serpent's tail. While commonly regarded as the creation of the rabbis of the early Middle Ages (the first traceable mention of Lilith occurs in a 10th-century folktale called the Alphabet of Ben Sira), Lilith is in fact drawn from the lili, female demonic spirits in Mesopotamian demonology, and known as ardat lili. The rabbis read Lilith into Scripture as the 1st temptress, as Adam's demon wife, and as the mother of Cain. [Rf. Thompson, Semitic Magic; Christian, The History and Practice of Magic.] In Talmudic lore, as also in the cabala (The Zohar), most demons are mortal, but Lilith and two other notorious female spirits of evil (Naamah and Agrat bat Mahlat) will "continue to exist and plague man until the Messianic day, when God will finally extirpate uncleanliness and evil from the face of the earth." In Scholem's article on one of the medieval writers in the magazine Mada'e ha Yahadut (II, 164ff.), Lilith and Sammael are said to have "emanated from beneath the throne of Divine Glory, the legs of which were somehwat shaken by their [joint] activity." It is known, of course, that Sammael (Satan) was once a familiar figure in Heaven, but not that Lilith was up there also, assisting him. Lilith went by a score of names, 17 of which she revealed to Elijah when she was foced to do so by the Old Testament prophet. For a list of Lilith's names, see Appendix. (pp. 174-5)Don't ask me why I gave you the whole entry. It's just that funny, I guess. And, just to keep up the comedy bit, I'll even give the Appendix entry.The prophet Elijah, according to legend, encountering Lilith, forced her to reveal to him the names she used in her various disguises when she worked her evil among mortals. She confessed to 17 names, and they are recorded in M. Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, p.1025:

1) Abeko, 2) Abito, 3)Amizo, 4)Batna, 5) Eilo, 6) Ita, 7)Izorpo, 8) Kali, 9) Kea, 10) Kokos, 11) Lilith, 12) Odam, 13) Partasah, 14) Patrota, 15) Podo, 16) Satrina, 17) Talto

(p.351-2)But there you go. Inasmuch as one engages the subjectivity of religion at all, I figure this is as legitimate as the next. And since I've dragged out the idea that a demon bore Adam's children this far, I might note that I really do need to find out where M. Gaster got his data, because I'm officially interested in the names. Abeko, Ita, Kali, Kea, Odam, Satrina, and Talto all ring bells with me in ways that, if I give some time to Karen Armstrong this weekend, I might be able to get a foothold on and start searching for documents. If it's late enough, you just have bastardizations of prior mythologies, including the taltos of Romany, which incidentally plays a strong role in the work of Steven Brust (it's his best-known character's name), and even trickled into Anne Rice, but only after Mr Brust had taken a couple of whacks at the Booklist bestsellers for genre.

But, yeah ... if a fraction of this religious fervor had been devoted to economic and situational progress among society, utopia might not be so laughable. I mean, some people devote their lives to the art of lovemaking, some to the art of scaring themselves senseless about God, and even I am a poster boy for a National Tokers League so don't think I'm ducking that generalization. In the end, however, I wonder if society hasn't devoted itself to religion because it is afraid of itself. Anyone I know will accept the individual conclusions, but is it possible that society refuses to progress except by necessity because it is afraid to try? I mean, I'll admit my theism any day of the week, but I think we all know that the good Mr Davidson has documented one giant heap of social delusion.

As a note, I made no stylistic changes to the presentation of Davidson's text except that I didn't list the names in two columns. Othewise, I have attempted to preserve the entries verbatim.

But I thought that might make you chuckle some.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Um...hey, you guys...there were other people just there...at least that's what "It" said. But, uh, the race thing...That has been explained too many times on the discovery channel...people migrate. Some people went south of the homeland (Africa) and got dark 'cause its real hot. Some people went northerly (European/Saxons) and became light 'cause it's kinda cold. Some of your forefathers (but not mine) went across one of those land bridge thingies (Native Americans) and got to be red 'cause, well... you all know about that ozone thing! Just a joke. Anyway, just to say something. Oh! Can anyone perhaps start a new thread about where the dinosaurs come into play in the Bible? Thanks. :rolleyes: "My husband is a dinasawuh and he really wants to know.":p

... the dinosaur bones were just a joke that the paleontologists haven't figured out yet. (Gaiman and Pratchett, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch)
I believe the Christian-accepted literalist date for creation is September, 4004 BCE; in fact, the aforementioned authors place the quoted line immediately after a review of this date; the dinosaur bones bit essentially is the punchline. I'm going to have to learn a couple of hitherto-untouched social sciences (e.g. formal demographics) to pull it off. Specifically, I have a vague notion of simple arithmetic, calculating the number of generations, then, 'twixt Genesis and today using any of a number of biblically-derived assertions for the date of creation.

Thus, how fast are people reproducing? How quickly are we accomplishing intra-species genetic diversity? Is it possible to go from 2 people of similar genetic stock (Adam and Eve are, essentially, the same genetic material, with revisions thrown into the production sequence) to 6,000,000,000 people of magnanimous diversity so quickly? How low must the mortality rate be to achieve this? What must happen to cause such a flourishing of species within the space of 6000 years?

Could interspecies reproduction contribute to human diversity? Perhaps not interspecies--it's all a matter of degree. But if we might envision a small series of genetic mutations that establishes itself over a subsequent generation, what is the network compatibility between two sets of genes attemting to create a new system? Look at a bonobo, which is noted to be our closest genetic relative on the planet; it is asserted that the genetic difference 'twixt humans and bonobos is approximately the difference between the family dog and a fox. I would not assert here that humans reproduced with bonobos or macacques, but did humanity evolve at a uniform pace? Perhaps the settlement in one valley passes a certain set of higher traits to a lower evolutionary entity: the idea of "missing link". If we mark two successive phases of human evolution, what comes between?

As I look at them, however, such assertions have vaguely eugenic overtones, so I must be cautious. But if the genetic difference 'twixt one human settlement and the next is a minute fraction of the dog/fox or human/bonobo separation, we might see reproduction occurring between what we had previously classified under separate species, or perhaps even genuses.

I'm not seeking a macacque homonunculus here but admittedly some degree of reproductive interaction between genetic codes largely considered disparate by classification.

Rather than bend to eugenics, I suppose one could use such an idea to rewrite evolutionary genetics, though I would not be surprised if grad students far brighter than I got around to the idea years ago at Stanford and discarded it for reasons I'm incapable of seeing.

But, to be honest, when this post started, I figured only on the wisecrack from Gaiman and Pratchett.

But a few unorganized thoughts, and probably worth a halfpenny ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

When I was a kid, I was fascinated beyond belief about the idea of enormous beasts roaming the land freely. Hell, I still am.

One of the theories that a certain Christian religion passed around about the dinosaurs (which is reminiscent of tiassa's quote from <i>Good Omens</i>) was that the dinosaurs existed within the crust of the Earth already. That when God was creating (organizing) the Earth, He took pre-existing materials, which included bits and chunks scattered about and composed the planet. Thus, dinosaurs never really existed in Earth's past, they were just part of the soil to begin with.

I thought this to be an ignoble explanation. The dinosaurs pretty much got shorted on this description of history. Interesting that as more information was literally unearthed about the physiology and cranial capacity of dinosaurs, that those theories gradually began to be displaced by other, less thought-provoking possibilites. For example, another theory was that they were created solely for the purpose of future fossil fueling for humans. Whether one believes in God or not, this is a terrible ethnocentric assumption. By the same token, perhaps humans are future fodder for other, more advanced terrestrials.

But to return to what tiassa was talking about. Specifically genetic diversity.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by tiassa:</i>
How quickly are we accomplishing intra-species genetic diversity?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Exactly. The Bible says (in Genesis) that man was created after the animals. By this, would fundamental literalists take this to mean that any Neandertal or dinosaurs that roamed the Earth during Adam and Eve's time were classified as animals? If so, would it then be okay to eat them? The point is that, as tiassa was saying, if there are only two phases of human evolution, what constitutes the interim periods? Six thousand years seems an awfully miniscule amount of time in which to diversify the human species, even allowing the classic rejoinder from religionists "With God, all things are possible." Melatonin levels would need to be calibrated at an unprecedented pace to accomodate the diversity that peoples the world over represent; color of skin suggests quite a few years of adaptation in particular climates, not just some random offshoot of a mutation within a gene, even allowing for albinism.

Some humans have hamstrings at slightly higher positions than others, allowing for faster movement of the legs. Could this be a trait that somehow mutated and became generalized in only 6,000 years?

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
I would not assert here that humans reproduced with bonobos or macacques, but did humanity evolve at a uniform pace? Perhaps the settlement in one valley passes a certain set of higher traits to a lower evolutionary entity: the idea of "missing link".
<hr>
</blockquote>

Another theory within some sects of Christendom is that perhaps Adam was the first Homo-sapien, although everything else in his ancestry would be classified as Neandertal or animal. Thus, rather than say that we evolved from monkeys or their closest analog, Christians can claim that Adam made that evolutionary jump from animal to a being with the ability of sentience. God recognized this and the rest is history, though muffled. Which lends some recognition to that one question: Did Adam have a navel?

But, again to return to tiassa's point, perhaps something else entirely occurred. Perhaps there happened to be a common stock of man (a certain genus) that managed to procreate successfully, but which roamed the land in all kinds of directions. Then, this pre-Man (can't think of 'before' in Latin), due to his being relatively young in his genetic structure and makeup was able to diversify very differently with respect to his surroundings. A common ancestor so to speak, though not necessarily human.

Well, that's what's on my mind, anyway. Thanks for the direction this took, tiassa.

prag

I think the prefix is ante-, as in antebellum (before the US Civil War), or antechamber (a smaller room that one enters before entering their destination). Of course, that just confuses some people too much, dealing with antehuman and antechristian ideas.

Which lends some recognition to that one question: Did Adam have a navel? Which requires some recognition of Bloom County: "And just who is going to rock me to sleep tonight, Milo Binkley!"One of the theories that a certain Christian religion passed around about the dinosaurs One of my favorites actually reflects the Gaiman/Pratchett line by accident. A Seventh-Day Adventist associate of mine was taught in home, church, and school, that dinosaur bones weren't really from dinosaurs, but that the flood had washed caused the land of the earth to restratify, settling heavy bones to the bottom, and that these bones and their accompanient oil and gas deposits are actually the mortal remains of the antediluvian inhabitants of a damned Earth. (I hope Boris gets a smile there.)

I really should get along, though ... the clock says its time to make my graceful exit from this farcical stage called the office.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Because we are mutts? The product of "THE SONS OF GOD, BREEDING THE DAUGHTERS OF MAN".... unless of course a million years of water washing up on the beach can make a GOLD PLATED TIMEX!:D

So, let me see if I got this right, what you are say is that the world, particularly the US FUNDAMENTALLY fails to understand that the objectives of the Roman Catholic church are the opposite of theirs? The PRIME OBJECTIVE of the CATHOLIC CHURCH is not to avoid Armageddon, but to TRIGGER IT? The root doctrine is approxiamtely as such... The church exists as a log-term, but nonetheless temporary institution to avait the return of Jesus? He will appear, airlift the true believers to safety and then the world blows up? THe objective of the Catholic church is to give everyone the chance for a free ticket off the planet before catastrophe and see that the return of Jesus is as swift as possible?

As stated in other posts the logic about the bible code is seriously upside down, assuming that it is "mystic forces" that make it an accurate predicting tool rather than the possibility of the reverse? Whilst NOT Scientologist, you accept the concept that the possitioning of words on a page can cause subliminal suggestive programming? The random occurance of words on a page, not only of the Bible, but also of Mody Dick, might be enough to gently manoevre mankind into doing what it supposedly predicts and, as such, makes it a frighteningly accurate predictive tool, albeit through a self-fuilfilling prophecy basis?

It is well-established that he was a fan of Science Fiction and loved "The FOundation" series by IOssac Asimov? Translated into arabic, The FOundation is "Al Qaeda" and it`s history is an embarrassing parallel of the book?

Likewise, the Catholic Church was established at the time of the Roman Empire and, not only adopted much of its culture, but also has changed little? As such, it does tend to believe inherently in "acts of God" as a substitute for superstition and so tends to try to MAKE prophecies come true? "The Shoes of the Fisherman" film about an Eastern European bishop who becomes Pope and undermines Communism is said to have been "prophetic" when the opposite is nearer the truth? Maybe the Cardinals just unofficially adopted it as a workable plan, electing John-Paul II to put it into progress?

Malachi, the eleventh century prophet has accurately predicted 111 popes, but maybe not through mystic forces, but because they Cathlic Church actually WANTED it to come true? According to Malachi, the next Pope is the last? Various other prophecies also conclude the same, variously suggesting that he will be JEWISH, FRENCH and die in Avignon? There is good reason for this - the catholic church is stuck with the fact there are clear safety catches that PREVENT the prophecies of Armageddon taking place? The first is that Christianity must have been spread to all parts of the world to give everyone a chance of a free ticket off the planet, so to say? John Paul II did most of this by undermining Communism, leaving only really South Korea to go and China that would probably be a push over in the future? SECONDLY, the BIG stumbling block to Armageddon and it`s a HUGE ONE for the Catholic Church is that it CLEARLY states in the Bible that the JEWS WILL BE CONVERTED FIRST? The Catholics have been battering away for two milenia at thsi one without any success, but then again Communism seems that way one a decade ago? Hence, they might try the same tactic, have a "man on the inside", a converted Jew? Also, they need to block Western European secularism, so he probably needs to come from Europe, but Italy will be unacceptable as they would be seen as going back to hide in the bunker?
Futhermore, they need a fearless b`stard who`s used to repression and has experience of it?

Lustiger was born a Jew? He was the righthand man of John-Paul II? He is French? He lived under the Nazis?

My guess is that the conclave will "tilt the machine" and make history fit the prophecy? They will elect Lustiger as Pope and he will take Peter as his name?He will visit Israel and he will mass convert large numbers fo Jews?As they "start turning the other cheek", it will further destabilise the middle east?

3rd August is the aniversary of the Romans destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem? Bin Laden will also try to make history fir the prophecies and Drosnin`s prophecies in the Bible Code will come true?

...And the Catholic Church will have had it`s way and Armageddon will be upon us?

I, for one, think that evolution would present itself as harmonious with a young student's notions of God, and might even enhance that child's relationship with God, if only the religionists would quit their sniveling, and stop insisting that evolution is not harmonious with God.

To whence I began: There is no real reason that evolution should be incompatible with one's notion of God. The only reason it comes up is because certain religionists insist on the incompatibility, and insult the hell out of anyone who doesn't agree. Oh, and then they whine about being persecuted, but nobody really cares about that, so we'll leave it alone for now.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(By the way, PeeWee ... welcome to sciforums.)

I actually agree with that. I have said before to SL that I am quite happy with the Theory of Evolution. But being a Thiest I like to think of it more as controlled evolution rather pure chance. I came to this conlusion looking at the absolutely incredible makeup of our human bodies and the world we live in.

And this notion of how evolution can't work with a Perfect God. Well it seems like a "perfect" experiment to me. We only have to look at the end results to realise this. I mean this might sound like a wacky notion to some, (well actually most people on this forum ;) ) but the way I see it is that out of all the planets God touched this one with his love and so life started to form here. He watched it grow and when he was happy with the development of one particular species he breathed this "soul" into them. We were the chosen species for this gift. He wanted us to love him back and so sent his prophets to guide us. He even gav us 10 rules as a base to live a moral happy life. When that didn't work, God himself came down and gave us just 2 rules to live by and so on....

Sorry, I waffled on there a bit. But IMHO Evolution can go very nicely hand in hand with God.