At 06:19 PM 9/24/2008 -0400, Pete Theisen wrote: >Charlie Coleman wrote: > > At 04:45 PM 9/24/2008 -0400, Pete Theisen wrote: > > ... > >> Evolution is scientifically demonstrable, as I learned in Catholic > >> school and studied further in Catholic university. The first cause is > > > Really? I hadn't heard that (we're talking about macro evolution, right?). > > I think the only branch of science that currently "supports" macro > > evolution is biology (not by evidence, but by by trying to show how things > > "might" have evolved by looking at genetic similarities). Archeology and > > mathematics do not currently support evolution. > >Hi Charlie! > >Macro and micro. When Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden they found - >other people. Where did those other people come from if not from >evolution? Either the "chosen people" or the evolved people are eligible >for inclusion in the modern Church, needing only to believe.
Hmm. I don't think I've heard that interpretation of Gensis before. I'll have to ask around about it. I think the traditional interpretation is that girls were not listed in the birth records of Adam and Eve (old Hebrew practice). Or, I think I recall a discussion about Cain breeding with "Neanderthal-like" women. But even those were created by God, not "evolved" from dirt. The problem I have is that evolution (macro) is currently not founded on sound science. Looking at the details of biology, the proponents say things like "...see this gene? it could have come from this other gene seen in this lower life form because the shape/function/chemical is similar..." but can't duplicate or even explain the process under controlled environments. Darwin himself expected the fossil record to be mostly filled in many decades ago - and to him, if it wasn't, he believed his own theory would be wrong. Then, in the area of probability theory, the chance of having what we have now through random events in genetics is so small (incredibly minuscule), mathematician laugh at the Theory of Evolution. Still, given all that, there is a strong undercurrent in the "scientific" community that if you raise a challenge to Evolution, you get chastised and ridiculed harshly (which is, in itself a bit odd... supposedly, science has "evolved" past the dark ages and should invite criticisms - not so in regards to Evolution). I'm not saying that God could not have used Evolution, but based on what I've researched so far it looks like He did not. -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
