I don't see the relevance, are you trying to suggest a religious scientist is not as capable as a non religious one?

I would bet theres plenty of ones who still follow ID..maybe not as hardcore to the T as bible thumpers, but still believing in an afterlife..

One of the most compelling questions I have for the die hard evolutionists (in a "pure" evolutionary sense, at least) is the following:

Assuming for one moment that we came to be solely through evolution and not through a process guided by some higher power, why is it that we are the only class of animals to evolve to our particular level? Why are there no reptilian/bird/insect species that have advanced as far as we have, particularly since both reptiles and insects are believed to have predated this?

Maybe this show answers that question, maybe not. But if so, I'm willing to bet I have a few dozen questions that remain unanswered.

I find those who ridicule creationists to be as ridiculous and offensive as those who ridicule evolution.

Which brings me to my next point: to WHICH particular theory of evolution are you referring? It is intellectually dishonest to fail to state that there are multiple theories and hypotheses regarding evolution, some of which are not entirely godless.

And to you, zoologist, I guess the question of whether God could do it or not comes down to whether you believe God is omnipotent or impotent.

Lula posts:



Genesis 2:7, “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” I believe this literally although I don’t know how or when.


This is the first I've heard the account of creation in Genesis described as parables. Some Church Fathers have described it as literal, as poetic and as allegory. According to the CCC, a parable is a characteristics feature of the teaching of CHrist. They are simple images or comparisons which confront the reader or hearer with a choice about his invitation to enter the kingdom of God. IMO, the creation account in Genesis doesn't seem to fit this definition.

Since the Church hasn't made a binding pronouncement regarding the various interpretations, we are free to adopt any one as long as it doesn't deny CChurch dogma which according to St.Thomas Aquinas is "part of the substance of faith that the world began by creation", God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin);that God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)and that God sustains everything in being and everything depends on God for existence.

Everyone knows that the human race came from one pair...For Christians evidence of the highest order, theology, sustains the belief that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and that the human race descended from them.

Think about this. A denial of this belief would be a rejection of the knowledge revealed by God to Moses as it’s recorded to Genesis. This knowledge was set forth and enlarged upon by St.Paul
who said that “God made the whole human race from one” Acts. 11:26 which included Eve which came from Adam. To deny this truth is to deny Christ who quoted Genesis approvingly to enforce the fact of Christian marriage is monogamous and indissoluble. Christ was talking to the Pharisees at the time. “Have you not read that He who made man from the beginning made them male and female, “ “two in one flesh..”.

At the time when Rationalism and Naturalism and other anti-Christian so-called sciences came into popular vogue, the Biblical Commission of the CChurch in July, 1900, declared that to doubt the literal story of Adam and Eve being “our first parents” would be a denial of Christian faith.

So whether one takes Mose’s Creator God of Genesis or Darwin’s god of random chance as your authority, the conclusion is that the human family came from one pair. Having the freedom of choice, we are left with the privilege of believing that your original ancestors came from the Garden of Paradise, or from the brances of a cocoanut tree.

“At what time was Adam created?”
A little after Eve.

And to you, zoologist, I guess the question of whether God could do it or not comes down to whether you believe God is omnipotent or impotent.

If he is impotent we have several pills that can cure that.

Personally, I think he may be omnipotent...but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to do anything even if you have power.  I think He just sits back and lets the world turn, instead of constantly turning it.  Of course there may be instances when divine intervention happens, then again it could all be luck and coincidence.  In this argument I prefer to think God has set up the construct of evolution to allow for life to develop and change.  It would pretty damned boring to see the same ol' shit over and over again in my opinion...so why not spice it up by having things change over time, makes an eternity of existence a little more interesting, don't ya think?

~Zoo

In this argument I prefer to think God has set up the construct of evolution to allow for life to develop and change.

Nope, creationism is crap, you said it yourself. You can't ride the fence when you make such sweeping accusations.

Now, had you said "YOUNG EARTH Creationism is crap", then you're referring to a specific school of thought. But God either did or did not have something to do with the design of the Universe.

And you still didn't answer my questions

 

You can't ride the fence when you make such sweeping accusations.

Ok, then put me on the evolution side.  The fence does poke you in the ass a little too much.  I just explained how I would incorporate my religious views into actual science.  If I find an answer for the things that seem...shall I say, supernatural...then I don't think religion would serve a purpose to me anymore besides morality.

Why are there no reptilian/bird/insect species that have advanced as far as we have, particularly since both reptiles and insects are believed to have predated this?

As for this...it's a good question.  I can shoot down the insect one because they don't have the capacity.  Their size is severely limited so their brains cannot develop to such a high degree.  Their exoskeletons can only get so big before they collapse under their own weight.  I believe reptiles are limited because they're exothermic.  Something about endothermy seems to promote advanced brains.  It may be the fact that endotherms can adapt to more conditions because they're able to self regulate.  I'm not too sure, really.  An organism only evolves to the point that it needs to in order to survive.  It won't spontaneously evolve without selective pressures. Maybe reptiles just found a decent niche and stuck with it.  Crocodilians have remained rather unchanged for millenia. Then again, there is that myth about lizard people living in the earth's interior...so you never know.  Birds are very similar to reptiles but have picked up that warmblooded thing.  If anything was capable of evolving into another sentient species, I'd place my money on birds.  Hell, they can even talk given enough training.  I'm sure there's quite an interesting paper on mammalian cognitive function, but I haven't read it...so asking me why mammals were favored really just leads to my base knowledge and speculation.

Well, that's one down...I have a class to get to so...gotta go for now.

~Zoo