930 years old. Well, you learn something new every day. And sometimes it's weird shit like that.

I'm sorry, what is YEC?

Ever heard the saying "not what you say but how you say it?"  The perception is the origins of life and how humans came to be are BOTH known as evolution.  Everyone here has corrected my media warped mind into knowing that evolution and origins are different and unrelated.

And now understanding that, there are still portions of evolution that I agree with and parts that I don't, namely that there is a relationship from modern humans and any previous genus.  To me, it's like forcing pieces of a puzzle to make a case that answers an odd question.  And the question itself, did we evolve out of another species, which I regarded as the origins of humans (and how the origins of life itself is somehow from if you start going asking 'what about this one?' so it sure seemed like the origins is part of evolution), does not have an answer.

But then, evolution is not about the origins of humans so, why isn't it accepted?  What was it that Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Well I certainly can't be over 900...right?

Sure enough.

Horse shit.  This is what you said, granny (yes granny -- since you must be senile):

Unless I'm taking the word "maybe" out of context, this indicates you were at least open to the possibility of a & e being australopithecines.  If you weren't, you should have said "Hell, no!", instead of "Maybe".  Let's work on keeping our thoughts straight, shall we?

Okay, let's start small.  You said you accept "some parts" of evolution, if I'm not taking you out of context.  Let's hear exactly what it is you do accept (and when answering, try hard to remember that evolution is not about the origin of life).

Actually, the bible states (and I stated in my previous post) adam was 130 when he had seth (gn 5:3), so -- as I stated in my previous post -- cain must have been working the land before this. 

So - do we have it on record that you believe man went from fruit-gathering to agriculture in under 130 years?

Well since you did say that adam could be pre homo genus, you should try really hard to make up your mind before you approach any question.

That's no hint, that's a different species.  Because chimps look kinda like humans does not make them humans nor does it make them a distant relative.  There has been a lot of guess work to make that connection and I simply don't buy it.  I've said it before, I relate it to how scientists first worked up the dinosaurs.  First time around they got it really wrong.  And so far, they haven't gotten it right, other than those things existed on this planet, which is exactly as much as they've gotten right about "human looking" things.

I'm familiar with this argument.  My response has always been since the DNA is not equivalent, they are not human.  Similarities do not explain genetic mutation.  And, please correct me if I am wrong, but I have not read or seen any evidence that any mutation has survived as anything other than what would be called a "birth defect."  Again, correct me if I am mistaken, however even down to the simplest bacteria, there has not been one case of one bacteria mutating into another.  And if something that simple cannot or does not, how would something as far more complex as those previous species mutate?  It seems far more speculative than "hints."

Oh, and I've never regarded cross breading as evolution.  That's just cross breading (kinda like in dogs).

Please take what I say here as not coming from a biologist or any kind of expert.  It is simply my honest opinion of what I know.  I'm not claiming to be right, just critical.

Granted but there are no "in betweens" that show any type of jump.  "Lucy" is still from what I understand the best proof of the jump from one species to the homo genus.  The interesting part to me is while this planet has seen its share of interesting species that have come and gone, it is the human ancestors that never seemed to share in a "they were here but no longer" type of approach.  Natural selection if you will.  Because we had to come from somewhere, those guys must have been it.  Dinos came and went.  Some really fantastic sea creatures came and went.  Scorpions could very well be related to an ancient fish version (although nothing proves they simply walked out of the ocean one day). 

Anyway I guess my point here is what makes it unreasonable is not because it conflicts with my faith but rather because of the assumptions that are taken to make it so.  They simply do not seem to fit.

Perhaps I am not a believer in evolution after if evolution is ONLY about how one species becomes another.  But I'm certain it is more than just that no?

This is what disgusts me about Xian dogma: Jesus taught that being a sacrifice was the epitome of a good person.  Andrea Yates sacrifices herself to "save" her children by killing them before the "age of accountability", therefore giving them a free pass to the Promised Land (something I and the other Atheists will - allegedly - never get).

That is, if people REALLY followed Xinanity, killing children would be the best thing to do.

It's a death cult that has duped people into thinking its about "love".  And, in reality, its a tradition in which people - generally good people - warp a horrible idea into something palatable because thats what humans do.

I'll do some reading on speciation so I can be more informed about what the science is.

I'm really not arguing against anything other than the idea that we mutated from a different species simply does not seem to fit.  While there is some "sharing" of DNA when someone procreates, isn't mutation a loss of something either way?  For example, if I were writing a computer program and decided to upgrade it (evolve it if you will), if the original has errors those errors would only continue and possibly jack up the whole upgrade itself.  At such point, the evolving of the program is no longer possible and a whole new deal would be needed.  I would then have to "create" something new.  I could share ideas from the previous but the new program could not be called an offshoot of the old.  A good example of this is how Windows have evolved over time and the same limitations and errors that continue no matter the version since Win95.  MacOS would be an example of how after version 9, it was not continued but rather allowed to go extinct.  The new shared much of the same look and feel but the OS itself was quite new.  It would be hard to call it an evolved byproduct.

I know that's not really the same thing compared to biology but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.

As I said before I'm far from being an expert here, but my comment to this thread is that I would not say evolution is a lie.  It is the biological portions that still seem more like science fiction.

Believe it or not, it's actually possible to believe in both God and evolution / science. Believing in one doesn't necessarily negate a belief in the other- it's not a contradiction.

Perhaps your post is addressing a particular "type" of Christian, whose mind is as  closed as a particular type of atheist.

In my opinion, these people are nothing more than two sides of the exact same coin.

You don't have to look any further than this website to see the diversity / rigidity of opinions and beliefs being expressed by both believers and atheists.

Why should I have written "belief in a god" as opposed to what I actually wrote "belief in God"..??

I'm a Christian - I refer to God as God - not Allah and not a god

Just God..!

I have no idea what your point is.

I'm a Christian - I refer to God as God. If I were a Muslim responding to your post, I would refer to this "entity" as Allah.

If I were to write a post and say goodbye, would it be necessary to also say sayonara / au revoir / hasta la vista / etc because the word "goodbye" can be said in many different ways by many different people..??!!

In my opinion, we're not talking about different "gods" - we're talking about the same "entity" with just different names attached by different faiths.

A fellow Thomist, perhaps?  Maybe even a fellow Catholic?  Awesome!

I believe in evolution and I believe in God.

I believe that the bible fills in the gaps that science cannot, and that science answers the questions that the bible doens't bother with.

The two can coexist.

Do I believe we have evolved from monkeys? No. And science HAS dissproved that theory.

Do I believe we have evolved from humanoids? Yes. And science has proved that also.

I do not think that proving evolution would impact anyone already a Christian, it would just strengthen our arguments.  It would probably just make sceptics more sceptial.

Which is to say you believe in compartmentalization.

False.  As science progresses, it fills the gaps it currently cannot.

False.  The bible makes claims (the origins of the universe, miracles, etc.), which are in direct contradiction to science.

Of course they can, as long as you're deliberately dishonest.

Science has not disproved that theory--because it has never been theorized that we evolved from monkeys.  Science has on the other hand proved that we and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

If by 'humanoids' you mean our hominid ancestors, then smile -- you've scored a point.

I fail to see how evolution strengthens the christian's argument, as it shows we do not need a god to explain how we got here. 

If you do in fact think evolution and christianity are compatible, please give your 'theory' about where on the evolutionary timeline free will and sin first made their appearance.  I've already posed this question to other christians in this thread, and as you can see, they've done a less than stellar job in answering.

So you have yet another belief based on assumption and inadequate examination of the evidence, apart from your belief in God. I see a connection here - you think your intuitive feelings about things are all you need to base your beliefs on.

Fundamentalist and other flavours of Biblical literalists definitely do not accept evolution, they believe that God created every kind of creature as we see them today, IOW no evolution allowed, unless they are all lying to us about it.

Sure you are.

Good for you.

Redundantly false?  Agreed.

Maybe this is more what I was trying to get at...  It seems that many Christians are simply ignorant to the current theory of how evolution works.  This ignorance, in turn, causes them to disregard it completely, basing their decision on a false understanding.  The Christians that "believe" in evolution are simply cherry-picking bits and pieces from their religion to allow both to coexist.  In other words, they either don't fully believe in their faith, and/or they don't fully understand what evolution says is true.  From my viewpoint, the two are not compatible - which is what led to my initial question...

Rephrasing it to something more like "If evolution was fully understood; i.e., the mechanics, the chemistry, etc, and was fully scientifically proven as fact, would it cause certain aspects of Christianity (or any other faith for that matter) to be automatically disproven, and ultimately cause "believes" to question their faith?"

As it stands now, there is obviosuly much confusion on the understanding of evolution in the general public (the average church-goers for instance).  This is where you get ignorant statements like "Where's the croco-duck?" and "We didn't evolve from no monkeys!"

Sadly, this is not the fault of evolution theory, but how it is taught in schools, and how some religious parents try explaining it to their kids at an early age - thereby muddying the waters before it is even properly introduced to them by someone who really understands it.  I'm sure I posted the video of these young-earth-creationists taking their kids to a science museum, explaining (incorrectly) how each exhibit was "wrong"?  Here it is again, just in case anyone missed it.  It makes me sick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY

This is very true.  It seems that it is becoming more and more of a fight to keep good science in public schools, as these fundamentalists argue that both "intelligent design" and evolution be presented to the students.  They treat science like it's a poison to their faith.  In reality, it is the antidote.

I'm not entirely sure why so many people think religion exists outside of science. I know lots of people - myself included - who believe that both religion and science can coexist quite well together.

I'm not sure why it has to be an either / or relationship.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the two coexisting at all.

If an individual wants to take the Bible literally- word for word - that's their perogative. Personally, I don't adhere to that mindset. i believe that  the Bible reader has to decide for him/her self, which sections are designed to make a point and which sections are grounded in fact.

I don't believe, for example, that God and Satan stood on the sidelines debating while poor Job suffered all of these terrible things.

But I do believe, for example, that a man named Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God, lived and was crucified.

As for your other questions, of course, problems remain for the theists. I certainly can't answer your questions i.e.when did "man's sinful nature  / when did souls emerge". I doubt (let me rephrase that I KNOW) that there's a person on the planet who could answer those questions with "surgical precision".

Why do you think that an important / essentail ingredient of a theist's mindset is based on faith..?

Let me put it another way - I have a mother. I love my mother, but if somebody asked me to "prove" it, I wouldn't have a clue how to do that. So if I can't "prove" something that is so fundamentally and naturally understood - so commonplace in the world in 2008 - millions and millions of people have mothers, who they profess to love, then how could anybody possibly "prove" / provide definitive answers to the questions you've raised.

If you think I'm wrong, then think about somebody you love and then prove to me in this forum that you love that person.

Good luck.

I can't prove I love my wife on this forum, but I can prove definitively that I love her.

The emotion "love" causes specific and measurable brain activity, as well as secondary responses, such as eye dilation and differences in heart rate. It would be trivial for me to go to a clinic that studies emotions and their associated physical responses.

But, as love is a subjective experience, the difference in proving that you "love" somebody is an entirely different proposition than attempting to indicate that your subjective feelings in any way prove or disprove the existence of an object. If faith were the same proposition as love, then all you are proving is that you are enamoured of a particular mythos, which may or may not have a basis in reality.

Not that I would doubt your faith any more than I would doubt your love for your mother. Your word is good enough for me. It's the object of your faith that I question. Just as I might question whether or not your mom deserves your love, if she had abused you terriblyl as a child.

This is very similar to a thread Topher started recently, concerning Gould's concept of non-overlapping mysteria. If you haven't found that yet, I highly recommend it as a good place for discussion of this very topic.

Two qualified physicians listen to a patient describe the exact same symptoms and come up with two different diagnosis' and treatments.

The last time I looked, medicine is based on science, isn't it...?? So why does the above situation happen..??

I'm a theist and I can provide plenty of evidence for my beliefs. But I wouldn't waste my time - or yours -  outlining my reasons because in the end, it eventually comes down to faith - the belief in something that can't be proven.

There are plenty of very intelligent people who are theists and plenty of very intelligent people who are atheists.

You'll just have to take my word on "faith" that I love my mother.

Since you've made no effort to qualify this little hypothetical, I do not perceive what relevance it has to do with the present topic.  Should I speculate, you imply that if two physicians can produce to different diagnoses, it is likewise permissible for christianity and evolution to conflict.  However, if the physicians' diagnoses are incompatible, at least one of them must be wrong.  So also with christianity and evolution; if a point of conflict cannot be resolved, one must be in error.  Of course, the error lies with christianity.

Which is to say you don't have evidence for your beliefs.  If you still need faith in the end, then your "evidence" is for naught.

Yet again, I do not perceive what immediate relevance this has to the topic.  If you have to default to faith in order to let christianity and evolution coexist in your mind, you are not thinking logically.

So one of those groups of "very intelligent people" must be wrong.  Which can it be?  I'm thinking it's the group which embraces faith over evidence.

Pardon me.  If you in fact hold that christianity and evolution are compatible, you can address the questions I have already asked.  Though as you've already stated, you are content to plead ignorance and patch over the inconsistencies with faith.  Feel free to take on the questions should you develop a newfound interest in logical consistency.  If you've nothing more to offer than bloviations about the health of your maternal relationship, you can do that elsewhere.

Ask and ye shall recieve.

Oh, and 'love' for your mother is, contrary to popular phrasing, not actually love. It's a psychological condition known as imprinting.

I enjoy giving 3 fer 1s.

myson, the hung-up we're having is that you profess that religion and science can walk hand in hand - yet one is based strictly on faith, the other on hard facts and data. This, well, does not compute.

Jill:

You're right - I don't know how to "prove" that I love somebody - perhaps you can enlighten me. Prove to me that you love somebody - anybody...!!!

You're wrong - it's not based on ENTIRELY on faith.

Two of the posters claimed that "love" could be proven scientifically.  I threw out a very simple request - provide me with a credible link that affirms their statement / belief.

But instead I get some "psycho babble" about imprinting.

Funny stuff..!