Evolution

[vs-eh?]

I believe to have a real good debate, you should at least be educated & have knowledge in the subject to debate the topic. In which I have not seen one post to show or demonstrate to me this of yet. Again, I see rhetoric ataganizing prompts, and appearantly a fixation of this topic.

I am university educated on aspects of this topic, though it has been awhile.

[Guest]

Ok I will tell you where I get my belief of creation from, but I know it will be argued by the evolutionists. But at least Iam showing you where I stand and why. I was raised christian and no i don't act like one most of the time, but that is my up bringing and my children's upbringing.

In Genesis chapter 1: the verses that convince me are Gen. !:25 thru 27

and god said, let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

and god said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; Male and female created he them.

Believe me I'm not the one to preach, and I'm not preaching....you wanted to know why I believe what I believe...and show proof....I have not seen any document that anyone has posted to make Me believe otherwise.

[UMassEMS18]

I am a Biology student and I have taken graduate-level courses on the subject of evolution. One particular textbook of mine, Functional Anatomy of Vertebrates by Liem, Bemis, Walker, and Grande is one of the most well-written texts encompassing evolutionary theory that I have ever read. In the beginning it presents a phylogenetic tree beginning with the hagfish (Myxiniformes) and ending with humans (Eutherian mammals). Step by step and chapter by chapter it shows what changes, whether adaptation, mutation, natural selection, etc., led to the biologic diversity we now see around us today.

For example, the list begins with Myxiniformes (hagfish) because they are the sister group of all craniates. They are the only vertebrates that are not craniates. To be a vertebrate they must: have a backbone composed of vertebrae, have at least two vertical semicircular ducts, and have radial fin muscles (which later in phylogeny become the muscles of the pelvic and pectoral girdles).

If you take the Myxine, modify the homocercal tail, add a buccal funnel, change the position of the gill openings, and evolve a notochord...you have Petromyzontiformes, or the lamprey eel.

Modify the mouth and articulate the palatoquadrate cartilage and mandibular cartilage and you give rise to a jaw and therefore the Gnathostomes (jaw-mouths). Humans are also Gnathostomes.

Use cartilage to maintain body structure and you have Chondrichthyians, e.g. sharks, skates and rays. Ossiffy the cartilage and you have Osteichthyians, e.g. trout and salmon. This is where the classification of Sarcopterygian begins (lobe-fin).

Then, add muscles to the lobe-fin. The extinct Eustenopteron used these muscles to crawl around on the bottom of lakes and rivers on its fins, but then it found that it could also do this on land. Its ancestor, the lungfish Dipnoi had found a way to divert it's blood flow from its gills to air sacs that now functioned as lungs. Move along in time and you get a creature with muscular pectoral fins and pelvic fins and also lungs...enter the tetrapod. And on and on it goes.

In evolutionary time, it is evident that there have been small changes here and there that led to speciation; not just phenotypic changes, but genotypic ones. Even though the puzzle is missing a few pieces, I think it is still very credible, and I believe to deny the very existence of some type of evolution is ignorant. What I have presented above is just a microscopic sample of the information that is out there. The best advice that I can offer is do not approach this subject with a closed mind. As EMS professionals we are always reminded that we never know everything and we must keep learning. It is the same regarding science. We do not know all there is to know. The best way to advance out knowledge is research and study. Just ignoring something because another book says it didn’t happen that way is a very poor method of finding the truth.

[UMassEMS18]

Let me also just give you an idea of where I'm coming from:

I was raised a Christian and went to Christian school from Kindergarten through High School. I still practice (in fact, I'm also the organist at my church). I read the Bible and I believe in it. However, there are some parts (e.g., the book of Genesis) that are not meant to be taken literally. As I said before, if the Creation account in Genesis is accurate, who is it that witnessed it and then wrote about it?

I believe that science and religion do not have to diametrically opposed. The can each coexist.

I believe that miracles, the Bible, and any other thing should be tested, if possible. If we find them to be fake, so be it. If tomorrow it was revealed that, say, the Big Bang Theory has been proven beyond any doubt, I would not be found running down the street yelling "there is no God." Faith itself is defined by American Heritage as "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." We do not know what God's will is...but we do know that He works in mysterious ways. So, I say, let science bring what it can. I will still be a Christian (and a Biologist )

[vs-eh?]

For those who choose to not accept evolutionary theory, and it apears we are concentrating on the Christian faith, what is your take on Hinduism? Budism? Islamic religions? Scientology? Tom? Tom are you here? Talk to me man... :wink:

Today I could write a document (well I couldn't), commenting on tsunami's, shark attacks, and space shuttle disaster's and extrapolate them into a religious context. I have ZERO doubt that it would be accepted by more people than I would think. Follow me my children...

I don't deny that the bible tells of certain events that happened (I have not read the bible). Floods, whatever, happened. They happen now as then. However the bible, as my hypothetical book, has made these events to serve a "higher" purpose. It caught on, was accepted by society at that time and still exists now. Initially I thought Scientology was a religion based on science, alot of people believe it, but it is pretty wacky, but no less valid than say Christianity. It just hasn't been around as long.

I believe that science and religion do not have to diametrically opposed. The can each coexist.

I most definitely agree.

UMassEMS18 - The text you reference appears to be in favour of the gradualism theory within evolution. Gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, that is another debate, and one that I don't remember all the key points on either side. An incomplete fossil record, to say the least, limits us wholly. How it presents though is a gradual march to Homo sapiens

and to me (correct me if I'm wrong) implies a purpose and direction. A means to an end. That I don't see that... time, space, and chance prevent me.

As I said before, if the Creation account in Genesis is accurate, who is it that witnessed it and then wrote about it?

So who wrote the bible?

It is 4:30am, July 31, 2005. It is 2005 A.D.....C.E.......whatever. Religion and faith play a role with every second that passes. Everyone feels it. I don't deny that. But putting many of your eggs into a basket that cannot be challenged, cannot be falsified, cannot be proven nor denied, seems a little fruitless. Turn around, close your eyes, lean back and fall, I'll catch you...Right?

[Guest]

I want people to like me for the jerk I am, not what I do or do not believe.

AK, I like you for what you do

[UMassEMS18]

Well, as I presented it, the progression seems to define gradualism. However, in this book, punctuated equilibrium has its place within the phylogeny, e.g., most fish speciation occured during the Devonian period, mammals in the Cenozoic.

You also asked about other religions and our views toward them. I believe that religion is a very personal thing. As such, it requires one to look deep inside themselves. Different people will come to different conclusions. I will not be one to say that "my religion is better than yours...here's why." If you look at the world religions, in many cases, they are more alike than they are different.

The argument that comes up most often is what will happen in the afterlife. Who is going to Heaven, who will achieve Nirvana, what if there is nothing? My response--so what? My philosophy--live as if this is all there is. Be the best you can be at everything you do, live your life to its fullest extent--day by day. When you pass, if you meet your maker, it's just icing on the cake.

[Tibby]

While I like and totally agree with your Biological views, Mass, I have to disagree with your theological ones. The world Faiths, are not "more alike then different." It is really had to for someone to make such a statement, with each faith split up into many more Sects. Pure land Buddhists and Roman Catholicism, for example, have a Lot in Common, but there is no comparison between Zen Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, they are so different! What few similarities that most faiths do share, I believe, come not from a similarity in the dogma itself, but an agreement on certain universal laws (e.g. Karma).

Anyways, my point is, these faith may have a lot in common, however they are different enough that someone has to be wrong. Is Jesus the son of God come to same us from Eternal Damnation? Will we be/have we been Reincarnated? These a questions that aren't a matter of option. Either they are true, or they are false. Someone has to be more right. The problem is finding out who that is...

[Guest]

I think what separates the world faiths is that...ok everyone believes in a God...that there is a higher power out there and everyone seems to agree on that, thus if they took Jesus Christ out of the picture there would probably be a world piece.

So what separates all the faiths in this world is the fact that there are many who believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God...and that is why there is so many religious wars going on. Civil and world and it will never end until the end of time.

[3Canz]

I think what separates the world faiths is that...ok everyone believes in a God...that there is a higher power out there and everyone seems to agree on that, thus if they took Jesus Christ out of the picture there would probably be a world piece.

So what separates all the faiths in this world is the fact that there are many who believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God...and that is why there is so many religious wars going on. Civil and world and it will never end until the end of time.

Sorry Angel, but I have to disagree with that. Not all religions believe in a God, some don't believe in God at all and others believe in many gods. It's a little more complex than simply believing in Jesus and not believing in Jesus.