And a good example of why comedy should be left to the experts.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Well, I had to make it believable eh, if only to wind Hambre up.

Dan,Don't be modest. Mike has really improved under your comedic tutelage. What color belt is he up to, sensei, ochre? Chartreuse?regards,
Esteban "Grasshopper" Hambre

I'll be lucky if I can get him to stop counting by banging his head on the wall. After that's down, we can work on basic footwork.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Oh no, I deleted my post, and now I have to do it all again. (I'm so frustrated) It would be logical - yes. I guess it's hard to convince myself though, fully - that evolution happened. This is because there is an element of truth to; "I wasn't there", and I don't mean that as a silly refutation, but rather - we are ignorant of what could have happened. There is no absolute certainty in science because of such things I guess.It might have came about through bibleGod's wonderous variety. I have problems, if we needed to go back to the trees, we couldn't evolve in time to survive could we? I've always thought this was one of the ToE's bigger problems despite the refutations I hear. Because if evolution is adaptation to survive - a change in the gene pool, gosh - that change can take a while!Nevertheless, this thread was parody, but I enjoyed some posts, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone like you or Hambre. I feel stoopid now cos nobody clicked on.I think I intermingled some genuine ideas with some silly ones in message one. Oops, a boo boo by the baba.

Actually, I'm a little surprised Mike hasn't taken offense at you calling him: Conjures up quite an image doesn't it? Edit: to remove annoying blue [blockcolor] This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-15-2004 02:40 PM

Eh. You can't really start a thread intended to wind people up, and then complain when someone winds you up back.

Of course, when I say "offense" I don't actually mean genuine offense. I imagined something more along the lines of:"How DARE you accuse me of being an incontinent dog....."Should have made it clearer, sorry.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-15-2004 03:09 PM

quote:

---

We couldn't evolve in time to survive, could we?

---

Apply your own experiences in life: Very local changes occur quickly. Regional changes occur slowly. Global changes take ages. And this is even with all that humans have done to speed up the process .Even if changes occur too quickly in an area for species to survive (and when a region changes, many species *do* die off in the fossil record, and don't manage to survive), whatever region it becomes like, there is generally nothing stopping the species from that other region to move in to occupy the newly available space. As the climate changes, you can watch in the fossil record as horses, for example, move into and across the Asian steppes in response, slowly adapting to the local niches (it's a shame that so many horse species died out - they once were very diverse. And of the wild horse species still in existance, most of them are endangered).When there is a sudden global change, the results are - as you predicted - catastrophic. Species - especially large ones - can't well handle sudden changes. Look at the fossils below and above the K-T boundary, for example. The vast majority of large animals extant below the K-T boundary did, in fact, die out. However, it was this catastrophe that weeded out the main competition to mammals, which at the time were only a small sidebranch of little hairy burrowing critters

quote:

---

It might have came about through bible God's wonderous variety.

---

You know, of the theistic evolutionists that I know, they find incredible wonder in the beauty and variety of God's creation - if not moreso than a creationist.To add perspective (to creationists and atheists alike): picture a being creating the first lifeform, with the full knowledge of how it would change, through all of the trial and happenstance that would occur, and guiding it to such a beautiful, diverse world, culminating in humans which would worship him. Not only does it involve creating the life, but the very laws of physics that would allow its existance, and the forseeing and/or guiding of everything that was to come. Theistic evolutionists often not only accept that God knew them before they were born, but that God knew them before there was anything even like them in the universe, and led the whole world along so that they and others like them would come into existance.Trying to picture a being capable of such a feat speaks volumes, to theistic evolutionists, as to the awe and power of God - as much, if not moreso, than a literal biblical interpretation does.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes, he knew our names since before the creation. it says this in scripture - I also believe it. I guess my problem is that despite lots of species dying and not surviving - I wonder why the changes happen, or what "use" millions of years is. For example, if there is an increase in grizzly bear critters and they start to wock our heads off all the time, what use will wings be in a few million years? Are you saying that eventually our survivors will grow them? And if they have survived, why would they need wings?It's like; If you survive, then you've survived without evolving, but then you increase and just what? evolve anyway? You see, this bothers me. Were the changes in morphology necessary if they survived anyway?

pst, if you're replying to me, hitting the llrb (little red reply button) works better.and i kind of figured it was a joke, but i thought it best that i play along. actually, i am a believer. and if it's blasphemy, so is the bible. all of those stories i talked about can be find in the torah, the first five books. perhaps you should read it? i have. i'm actually somewhere near the end of exodus at the moment, re-reading in the new jps translation of the masoretic text. it's quite a good translation, but it likes to skirt all the hints of early polytheism. for instance, it doesn't like to translate "ben-eloyhim" as "sons of god" or "family of god" because that implies others like god. but um, try reading even the king james version, i don't care. all of those stories are in it. isaiah's not the nt. and i was talking about stories found within the torah, the HOLIEST of the books collection called the bible. the books of moses. i quote the bible. i don't think these things are neccessarily bad. who is one to judge god? i'm just saying that these are things that make unbelievers not so eager to follow. here, i'll break it down.this is a god who lies to his children to keep wisdom from them, lest they become like god who was right, god or the serpent? who lied? they didn't die, but their eyes were opened, and they became, in god's own words, like gods.this is a god who confused mankind with different languages, because he was worried about mankind's progress this a god who instructed his children to steal from their neighbors and encouraged the conquering of a LARGE portion of the middle east. this text STILL encourages war several thousand years later.see any passage regarding the promised land, especially this one: (from my masoretic text translation) have a look at a map, that's not only all of israel and jordan, but parts of egypt, saudia arabia and iraq.this a god who allowed deceit and treachery on the part of his first called servant to go unpunished.see genesis 20. not only do abraham and sarah go unpunished, but god punishes the household of abimalech. if i recall, abraham pulls this same trick three times, and his son isaac pulls it once. and they always get away with it.this is a god who was alright with the sons of israel killing an entire city for raping their sister, after tricking them into circumcision (god's holy covenant) in order to weaken them. genesis 34. i won't post the whole chapter.this is a god who said he holds children and even grandchildren responsible for their parents' crimes. and this is a god who even calls himself jealous -- a very immature and dangerous quality this is a god who killed two people for not impregnating their brother's wifeoh, look, i was wrong. god kills one of them (the brother) quite randomly. this is a god who decimated egyptian society by manipulating the emotions of pharoah and then punishing everyone for it, including killing many, many innocent children only to get off on how glorious his might is.read the first half of exodus this is a god who will kill you for touching his stuff. this is a god who tells you kill people who work on saturdays. god is both good and evil. he defines the two, but above being either one (there is no devil). this is the picture the bible paints of god. we do have the laws of sin and death. we half the second half of exodus, leviticus, and deuteronomy. this is literally called "The Law (of Moses)." it describes what god says is sin and what is punishable by death.as for wars being waged by humans: and exodus is full of atrocities commited by angels of god. i would call killing innocent children -- every first born in egypt -- the very definition of atrocity. have you no eyes to read? have not said "even i -- and none else beside me." in fact, the professor of my bible class tends to completely tear apart anything christians say in his class. no because he believes different, and not because he hates christians, but because the bible says different.what interpretation did i put on those verses above? i read them exactly as they are, and just applied basic reading comprehension to them. it's what the bible says. like i said somewhere here before, i am far more literalist than the literalists. i was mocking your statement. actually, i've dated a fundamentalist christian. i've BEEN a fundamentalist christian. you said earlier god favors those who seek wisdom. i seek wisdom. i read and study and think about the bible. and god's name is not i am. moses asked god what his name was, because according to tradition, a spirit's name dictates it's function: if you control the use of it's name, you command it. moses was one upping god, and failed. god replied to moses that his name was "i am what i am" or "i will be what i will be" etc. this is similar to odysseus's "nobody" when he pokes out the eye of the cyclops. it's designed to mess up the other party. god then says to moses to tell the israelites that "i am" sent him, and then promptly MAKES UP the name YHWH, which is a play on the verb "to be." it's a pun, and it makes no sense in english. the torah can be quite funny, if you read it with proper footnotes. almost every name is a pun on something. "Even I - and none else beside me"consider this a challenge.

Mike.My first reply is an advertising jingle for a brand of meat products available in the US. You can learn more hereWe'll, it's likely true that we would not survive. That's the underlying story of Evolution.

But...

there is the possiblility that some humans might have a random mutation that makes them better climbers than the majority of humans. Those humans that have that random mutation will have a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce than those that don't have the mutation. So the majority of humans die off, a few survive. Gradually, over time, some of their children will through random mutation be even better adapted to life in the trees. And eventually, over long periods of time we may well evolve into tree dwellers. Then we will debate if we could possibly be descendants of humans.Evolution has no direction.There is nothing special about humans.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mike,

quote:

---

I guess my problem is that despite lots of species dying and not surviving - I wonder why the changes happen, or what "use" millions of years is. For example, if there is an increase in grizzly bear critters and they start to wock our heads off all the time, what use will wings be in a few million years? Are you saying that eventually our survivors will grow them? And if they have survived, why would they need wings?

​

It's like; If you survive, then you've survived without evolving, but then you increase and just what? evolve anyway? You see, this bothers me.

---

You know, Mike, I can't fault you for taking the piss when you're responding to sarcastic remarks from the likes of me or your Zenmaster Dan. It's snide responses like this to patient, insightful posts like Rei's that give you a bad rep here.As far as I can tell, Rei wasn't trying to rake you over the coals or ridicule you. I'm not a believer, but I think she makes a good case that the theistic evolution argument gives God a lot more credit for His handiwork than literalist-creationist nonsense. So once again you repay the time and effort people take to try and engage you without condescension by playing the fool. And then you wonder why the same people end up being hostile to and dismissive of you and your worldview.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

I am creationist because evolution is a theory to me, not a fact. I still think that "evidence" is not being looked at objectively, and that people "favour" evolution because some people fear of bibleGod being true.

---

I am a Geocentrist because the Theory of a Helocentric Solar System is a theory to me, not a fact. I still think that "evidence" is not being looked at objectively, and that people "favour" helocentricity because some people fear of bibleGod being true.

quote:

---

"Creation is true".

---

You put the quotes in the wrong place.Creation is "true".