Go to LETTERS, ESSAYS & SHORTS
- Add a comment
- Go to What Is The "POINT" Of "Evolution?"... What Is the End-Result???
I think it is plausible! sam
posted by
sam444
on July 15, 2008 at 9:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Read some of your previous articles on the subject and the comments
Simple Darwinian evolutionists of materialistic bent has yet to prove beyond doubt that our type of Being has descended through a slow adaptive process from some other type. I do however think we share a common root or at least a common plan with the other apes if you look at the blueprint (DNA) that is such a close match between us and the chimps. Looking at fossil history there seems to appear a new kind of hominid ever so often and then it disappears again without there being any transitional phases and with there being at least two types present at the same time sometimes. Failed prototypes? Are we becoming that? These questions are however only relevant in a "there has to be an end goal beyond the present moment" scenario which I will not deny but I also think that everything as it is at any given moment has full validity and meaning just as it is without having to have come from somewhere and be busy going somewhere either. I think there are more than one or two dimensions to life as it unfolds from moment to moment and I personally don't like getting stuck in only one.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on July 14, 2008 at 11:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Read some of your previous articles on the subject and the comments
Thanks, Aardi, for your fine comment! Neither do I "have any problem reconciling creative intelligence with evolution." However, the facts simply do not, in my opioion, support the premise that "God" used this method to create mankind. On the contrary, mankind seems to have appeared suddenly upon the Earth, essentially as he is today, not thru some type of evolutionary process.
I share your apparent belief that the Creationists drastically lower their own creditability by tying their own "proofs" so closely to the Bible's literal 7-day creation time table. Intelligent Design (I.D.) seems much the more probable.
I, also, very strongly agree with the last statement in your comment. Time only will reveal the truth!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on July 14, 2008 at 11:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Read some of your previous articles on the subject and the comments
I have no problem reconciling creative intelligence with evolution. Every thing changes. That some species have changed dramatically over millions of years or even gave rise to new species (species are just labels to give us tools to work with in our obsession for classifying events so that we can better cope with the natural variety) does not exclude the work of creative intelligence at all. Even the "primal soup" does not negate the "spirit moving on the face of the waters". With God specific timeliness are not a hindrance. Why do most creationists insist on a couple of thousand years other than that they rely on a specific interpretation of the Biblical account for timeliness? There are some who use the same source and only view Adam as the first proper "man" from whom the "Adamites" or certain types of humanoids descend. Then there is the saying that one day is like a thousand years, and the other way around, for God, which you can take either literally or as an indicator of not being restricted to our usual day to day perceptions of time. The only problem I have with some evolutionists is their insistence on ignoring consciousness and then some who are trying to validate their misconceptions about the nature of reality where they want to exclude their own misconceptions about God in such a way that they wont ever get to the proper meaning of God as intended by Christ, among others, and they want everybody to sit at their little round table of ignorance so they can feel all chuffed at being the heroes of reason and objectivity they believe themselves to be.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on July 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM
| link to this | reply