DC10

Hi Ninhao. May I suggest that Adam is important for the idea of Original sin? The story of sin and redemption just needs sin - yours, mine (certainly), everybody's - and redemption - the Resurrection.

Replying to the OP: Why am I here? I joined originally for some interesting discussions about evolution, but it has developed since to include enjoyment of fellowship. I still don't like the "vs." bit of the forum's title, although some of the posts have made me realise, with great sadness, that's it's not as much a false dichotomy as I first thought. I rather go along with Augustine's thoughts on the matter - there can only ever be one type of truth, and that comes from God. In typing that, I realise I probably also come here as witness, poor though it is.

Are you asking me, gw? If not, apologies for butting in! Pretty niche now, biotech-ish, but originally applied research, pretty ho-hummy.

Previously, Neil wrote: "Actually, in my opinion it’s not clear at all. To the contrary, it’s clear that many don’t know what they believe in. ... Evolutionists are also taken by surprise when asked what is it exactly that they believe in: gradualism or p.e. And many other things." I've just deleted a draft response that was going to end up asking what p.e. was, but I've just worked it out - punctuated equilibrium. I believe in both. To my mind, punctuated equilibrium represents a comparatively rapid change from a gene pool of one, almost stable, population, to a noticeably different gene pool of a subsequent population (which in turn becomes almost stable). The comparatively rapid change is never the less i n c r e d i b l y slow (no, much much slower than you've just imagined), and takes place over very many generations; this "rapid" phase is what punctuates the equilibrium of the two populations. In other words, the period of "comparatively rapid change" is itself a period of gradualism, but a gradualism that proceeds at a faster rate than either of the periods of equilibrium. For me, the discussion is about rate and pattern, not a choice between two conflicting theories. Surprised you asked.

Really sorry to hear your faith didn't grow. For what it's worth, as a fellow scientist (if I dare use that phrase in connection with my career), I can only say that when I asked Him into my heart, the experiment was successful. Best experiment I ever organised, thinking about it.

I appear to be the only one here who has no idea where you're going with this. I'm guessing, but I've seen Rh in the context of "gay genes" - is this what you want to discuss? And if you could please provide us with a reference to "Rhesus" coming from the name of some crackpot inventor, rather than the more common belief that it was first recorded in 1940 by Landsteiner and Wiener when they made the antibodies by injecting rhesus monkey red cells into rabbits, I'd be greatly interested. Mice have an Rh gene, by the way.

I wasn't asking you to. The point I was trying to make is that the argument will not work in a debate against evolution because the evolutionist will argue the mutation occurred in us well after our line split from that of the apes. So is this argument about the Nephilim? At least there's evidence in the Bible of such a union,we have no evidence of evolution. {Sorry folks, hit Return too early}

A while back I heard the quote "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". I knew what they were saying but it didn't really sink in until I started studying evolution. The quote is dead on, nothing makes sense in biology EXCEPT in light of evolution. It's the title of a very thought provoking article by Theodosius Dobzhansky, published in "The American Biology Teacher" in 1973, and reproduced in the excellent collection of articles in "Evolution" edited by Mark Ridley in the Oxford Readers series (nb not to be confused with the same author's textbook of the same name). In checking this before posting, I was amused to notice the closing comments in Ridley's Summary to the article: "The theory of evolution is established beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, it does not clash with religious faith." Hm.

Hi Viole "My favorite is the tail. True, we do not have a tail anymore, but the genes to create the tail are still there and sometimes babies are born with one tail. These genes are just silenced by another gene that disables them. What is the use of the tail-generating genes, if we do not need a tail, anymore?" Do you know if other apes show this atavism?

"Relativism- this is something that ALL evolutionists believe," No they don't. "they have to in order to back up their beliefs." No we don't.

I agree your points D9, but you will sometimes see authors use "prove" in the legal sense, meaning to test - more formally "demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth or existence of" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary). The evidence is, to my mind, overwhelming.

"Some of the world's most renown scientific organizations have taken the stance that you cannot be a scientist if you believe in God." Can you name a few, Spero? As someone who believes in God but makes a living from Science, I'm amazed any scientific organization would make such a claim - and nor is it remotely true - when I was in research we had a very active Christian Union, and several of my co-workers and fellow authors were Christians - one of the best was a Creationist. One's faith should not interfere with one's ability to do a job (or get paid for having fun, in my case) although it should always affect the behaviour of the worker, as witness to that faith. Which aspects of evolutionary science do you feel can't be proved, btw?

Really interesting link, artsylady, thank you.

Beloved, Why Ever Not The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Matthew 1:1-17 Unless Most Christians Are Not Believers In The Christ Of The Bible That Is And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:23-38 All of which is fine, none of which addresses my point. When polling, it is generally a bad idea to include your preferred answer in the question. Unless you want to bias the response, that is. But it's a common enough mistake, even by professional pollsters, especially on this sort of topic.

Don't suppose it's worth saying I don't think m o s t Christians believe it's only a few thousand years old? No, didn't think it was.