Iamme
4th November 2007, 01:29 PM
This is not really addressed per se. Only usually in a lengthy roundabout sort of way.
In a nutshell, all you have to do is ponder this before falling asleep at night by asking yourself this:
How did we get here?: The creation (myth) story?, or evolution? Here is the key thing: Either some supreme something or another (advanced aliens) laid us out on some table, like workers making circuit boards at a factory, and we were in some oxygen rich environment while we were quickly being assembled perhaps within minutes, or else our body parts would deteriorate before we could even take a first breath (I may run this by the Jehovah's Witnesses to see how they can explain how life appeared without dying in the making process) - OR - something happened where basic ingredients came together and made the simplest of substances that fits the description of life, and it evolved into more and more complex structures.
Or, is there something else we haven't thought of? Something besides this either/or argument?
We think evolution occured because there is evidence (proof) of the genetic codes contained in lesser species that are in us. But what does that prove, really? It does not prove we had to COME from the lesser specy comon ancestry, does it? All it proves so far to my unschooled mind is that we contain the same stuff, and with more. To go further than that statement is reaching a conclusion that is not validated. It's a presumption.
If the evolutionary tale is correct and there is nothing more to the story whatsoever. That there was no intelligent force behind it,... that tale not only says WE evolved from say an amoeba-like cellular creature, but you can go back and say that the entire UNIVERSE evolved, along with us, from hydrogen gas. That all this happened for no reason, no guidance by any brainy-like force, and it just did it because it perhaps had trillions of chances to experiment. (But ever hear of my Abraham Lincoln in a log cabin wearing a watch argument? :))
But what if the truth is in the middle somewhere? What if ingredients abounded and the conditions were right to make water cycle first, then plants next, then, separately the fish world, then the animal world. And what does that sound like?; the creation story! And THEN there was something halfway between micro and macro evolution that occured where say mice and squirrels evolved from a common ancestor, and emus and ostriches had a common ancestor, and all the cats from tigers to house cats, etc., to where we could cut down on the number of distinct species at creation.
RATHER than believe all of life stemmed from one cell, and forked off in so many diverse ways. What is there about that story that sounds so plausible? Can any of you give me the scientific fact that proves that is what happened?; that we share a common ancestry with poison ivy, or a walking stick? Why would we even believe such a thing as opposed to a creation story?
So this is my project, laying awake at night trying to figure out some logical answer. The two either/or arguments seem lacking, on just their own merits. A lost continent of Atlantis where there was this superior civilization that had vast knowledge that got lost, seems more logical to me, in holding some key.
In a nutshell, all you have to do is ponder this before falling asleep at night by asking yourself this:
How did we get here?: The creation (myth) story?, or evolution? Here is the key thing: Either some supreme something or another (advanced aliens) laid us out on some table, like workers making circuit boards at a factory, and we were in some oxygen rich environment while we were quickly being assembled perhaps within minutes, or else our body parts would deteriorate before we could even take a first breath (I may run this by the Jehovah's Witnesses to see how they can explain how life appeared without dying in the making process) - OR - something happened where basic ingredients came together and made the simplest of substances that fits the description of life, and it evolved into more and more complex structures.
Or, is there something else we haven't thought of? Something besides this either/or argument?
We think evolution occured because there is evidence (proof) of the genetic codes contained in lesser species that are in us. But what does that prove, really? It does not prove we had to COME from the lesser specy comon ancestry, does it? All it proves so far to my unschooled mind is that we contain the same stuff, and with more. To go further than that statement is reaching a conclusion that is not validated. It's a presumption.
If the evolutionary tale is correct and there is nothing more to the story whatsoever. That there was no intelligent force behind it,... that tale not only says WE evolved from say an amoeba-like cellular creature, but you can go back and say that the entire UNIVERSE evolved, along with us, from hydrogen gas. That all this happened for no reason, no guidance by any brainy-like force, and it just did it because it perhaps had trillions of chances to experiment. (But ever hear of my Abraham Lincoln in a log cabin wearing a watch argument? :))
But what if the truth is in the middle somewhere? What if ingredients abounded and the conditions were right to make water cycle first, then plants next, then, separately the fish world, then the animal world. And what does that sound like?; the creation story! And THEN there was something halfway between micro and macro evolution that occured where say mice and squirrels evolved from a common ancestor, and emus and ostriches had a common ancestor, and all the cats from tigers to house cats, etc., to where we could cut down on the number of distinct species at creation.
RATHER than believe all of life stemmed from one cell, and forked off in so many diverse ways. What is there about that story that sounds so plausible? Can any of you give me the scientific fact that proves that is what happened?; that we share a common ancestry with poison ivy, or a walking stick? Why would we even believe such a thing as opposed to a creation story?
So this is my project, laying awake at night trying to figure out some logical answer. The two either/or arguments seem lacking, on just their own merits. A lost continent of Atlantis where there was this superior civilization that had vast knowledge that got lost, seems more logical to me, in holding some key.