Is there a GOD? - ding! ding! ding ding geeeeet reaaaaaady toooooo rummmmble!!!!

[paris]

For FC --     Some of this is very frustrating.        I believe what I believe. And I believe a Christian would be the first to accept all of God's (or whoever) creatures and that we are suppose to love each other - not just Christians who think exactly like we do.  I judge no one on their believes and it dumbfounds me how many people do judge others.   A discussion is to share ideas and open up new thoughts that can be explored.   I know the cave men existed.  I have been waiting to see how some justify their existence.    Like FC, there is so much I would like to share, but this has kind of hit a wall.   "Fragile Christian" - interesting phase.    I am so confident in what I believe that I can allow others to believe what they think is right for them.   So, FC and I are going to go sit in the corner together and watch the ongoing tutorial.   Maybe I will learn something   

[Hemodoc]

    Before I go, and this time I will be gone.  I just want to say, it isn't funny it is sad acually.  So much I'd like to "unload" in the "Is there a God" thread, but it goes against my princiapls to do so.  Besides if I did, it would just bog everything down in an agument over "doctrin and dogma" and what the scriptures say.
     I wanted to discuss things.  Seems some people are such fragle Christians that if the bible doesn't say it then it dosen't mater. I can not see the other side of the moon, there for it does not exit.  There is such much other tought to consider.  I got tired of pointing out that the historical record should also be considered and what is in the bible is not really involitable because it has been altered by translationa nd inteerpration durng translation.  That just because it is it in the bible doesn't mean it is the only thing to think about. What about non Christian views on moral subjects? 
     

Rob, sorry to see you leave.  I am not sure why you feel you cant' speak your mind. Epoman certainly set that example for all to do respectfully.  One reason that I have used the book of Isaiah for many of the quotes is that no one questions the translation.  We have the Isaiah scroll from 200 BC from the Dead Sea Scroll collection.  It is exactly what we have today.  The OT Masoretic text we have from 900 AD and that is what we have as the basis of the King James OT text.  The rest of the King James OT from the Masoretic text was passed down with the exact same precision that gives us the Isaiah text, we simple don't have an extant complete text for the rest of the OT.  Nevertheless, the Isaiah scroll does speak of accurate translation of the Isaiah text and by inference the rest of the  Masoretic text as well.

The New Testament text is a much disputed issue that is interesting but I suspect Epoman might say to start a new thread on Bible translations.  That would be an interesting thread to some folks.  Epoman really set up a great website where just about anything in the world could be discussed and is discussed.  As far as the historical evidence, that is also another great subject.  So, not so sure why you feel you can't "unload" so to speak, perhaps it would make an interesting discussion.  Obviously this thread has outlived its creator by many years testifying that the subject has great interest. 

[Hemodoc]

For FC --     Some of this is very frustrating.        I believe what I believe. And I believe a Christian would be the first to accept all of God's (or whoever) creatures and that we are suppose to love each other - not just Christians who think exactly like we do.  I judge no one on their believes and it dumbfounds me how many people do judge others.   A discussion is to share ideas and open up new thoughts that can be explored.   I know the cave men existed.  I have been waiting to see how some justify their existence.    Like FC, there is so much I would like to share, but this has kind of hit a wall.   "Fragile Christian" - interesting phase.    I am so confident in what I believe that I can allow others to believe what they think is right for them.   So, FC and I are going to go sit in the corner together and watch the ongoing tutorial.   Maybe I will learn something   

Dear Paris,

Thank you for your comments.  Cave men would be a great topic fitting into the evolution issues that Epoman brought up himself on this thread.  As far as the Christian sharing, I would only point out how anti-Christian this thread has been at times.  Starting back in August, I decided to  counter many of the misconceptions that people were writing about the Bible and about Christians.  Unfortunately, insulting Christians seems to be rather socially accepted today in so many subtle and overt ways.  One more now pops up on this discussion of the so called "Fragile Christian" that Rob brings up. Since Rerun and I are the two most vocal born again Christians on this thread, I will assume we are included in this new appellation.  I wouldn't say that Rerun is fragile or easily broken and destroyed in the least since she has been putting up with strong opposition for years on this thread.  I would instead call Rerun quite outspoken and bold.  I enjoy a fellow Christian who is willing to step into the caldron that always follows a Christian speaking openly and boldly about their faith.  There are many subjects of great passion and interest to people, not the least of which is this thread, Is there a God?  Many have spoken their view openly and boldly on all sides of the issues on this thread. I suspect that it will continue for a long time to come just as Epoman hoped.

[paul.karen]

Hemodoc you hit it on the nail.

Anti-Christian, but not merly on this thread but in general around the world as a whole.

here in jersey a few weeks ago a student (5th grade) was kicked out of study hall.  Study hall here means you sit and read a book for an hour.  Any reading is good reading.  So this 10-11 year old was reading the bible. The teacher said that wasnt worth the paper it was written on and made this little child cry in class thus having her booted from the room to read her bible in isolation.  If it were the Koran i highly doubt this would have happened.

We as Christians should get use to this condemnation our faith scares many people why?  Im not sure but it does.

Go to goggle and put in Christian is --  Or  Judaism is --  or Catholic is and see the responses so many are negative and nasty.
Then type in Islam is and the screen goes blank.

Point being it is easy to mock the people who dont pose a threat.  Yet be dammed if you make a cartoon of some Allah cleric who preaches hatred.

I find it  funny so many nonbelievers and/or atheist enjoy the many Christian holidays yet say they dont believe.  Speaking for myself if i didnt believe in a certain holiday i wouldn't participate in it.

So while our time on earth is short, we too shall be persecuted for our beliefs but we also shall reap the rewards.

[-Lady Noir-]

Science and Religion don't have to agree... for me they don't agree at all.

Science proves the way the Bible tells how the Earth was made to be false.

I believe 100% in science...

Angie <3

One of the best things i have read on this thread yet.

When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong 

[Rerun]

I just can't, as a born again Christian, sit back and just let people believe what they want to without telling the truth as I'm taught.  Any Sunday that I go to Church we are asked to spread the Word and to invite a friend to church.  We believe that we are saving your life eternally if you just accept Jesus as your Saviour.  I just can't let someone say they just believe in a higher power and their god is love and they are good and they know right from wrong and they will just live on a star after they die.  Its not true folks. 

I have a good friend that is Sikh (Seek? East Indian) and I don't even know how to approach her.  Their religion is really superstitious.  They don't drive for 6 weeks after having a baby.... they bargin with their god like if you do this I'll do this.  She took 3 days off work to go pray at their church because her baby got well.  It is just so ingrained in her that I am just speechless.  I've asked her why she celebrates Easter and she said "if there are presents involved... I'm in". 

I have another friend who believes that we are all on a frequency and if you are on earth you are on one frequency and if you die you go to another frequency and they can see us.  Everything is a conspiracy and George Bush is behind the end of the world.  Now I can't hold my tongue with him. 

[del]

But how did his sister get to a far off land???

Dear Del, that is a little different question than who did he marry.  In fact, the Bible does not answer all questions that we could ask.  If you are asking for a direct answer to that question, I will simply state I don't know, it is not specified how far away Cain moved.  One day's travel, 10 days, a hundred days.  Just not specified.

However, the Bible testifies that Adam lived for 950 years and had had sons and daughters. It is likely that the earth was populated quite rapidly after the creation according to the Bible.  The Bible does not also specify how old Cain was when he married as well. With hundreds of years of time to do this, traveling to a far land would be no more limited than it was a few centuries back when we had Marco Polo travel in his short lifetime all the way to China and back again.

So, in short, I do not have any specific answer to how Cain or his wife got to a far land, but it was not a hindrance to those over the last few hundred years to accomplish great travels without modern travel.  The Bible states that He created the earth to be inhabited, and it looks like it was very early on after the creation even by a second generation person, Cain and his sister, or niece, whoever she was, it was populate even in far away lands.

So what you are saying is just  your interpretation of the Bible it is not based on any fact. 

[Hemodoc]

But how did his sister get to a far off land???

Dear Del, that is a little different question than who did he marry.  In fact, the Bible does not answer all questions that we could ask.  If you are asking for a direct answer to that question, I will simply state I don't know, it is not specified how far away Cain moved.  One day's travel, 10 days, a hundred days.  Just not specified.

However, the Bible testifies that Adam lived for 950 years and had had sons and daughters. It is likely that the earth was populated quite rapidly after the creation according to the Bible.  The Bible does not also specify how old Cain was when he married as well. With hundreds of years of time to do this, traveling to a far land would be no more limited than it was a few centuries back when we had Marco Polo travel in his short lifetime all the way to China and back again.

So, in short, I do not have any specific answer to how Cain or his wife got to a far land, but it was not a hindrance to those over the last few hundred years to accomplish great travels without modern travel.  The Bible states that He created the earth to be inhabited, and it looks like it was very early on after the creation even by a second generation person, Cain and his sister, or niece, whoever she was, it was populate even in far away lands.

So what you are saying is just  your interpretation of the Bible it is not based on any fact.

Dear Del, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from simply stating that the Bible doesn't specify every single condition and question that someone could ask.  In addition, despite the fact that many do not like the fact that I quote from the Bible in my answers,I do so only to let the Bible speak for itself.  Since most people that criticize the Bible have no idea what it really says, pointing out what it says is an important issue for anyone interested in the subject.

That is not an interpretation, it is simply postulating whether the Bible is true or not from the Bible itself.  It is up to you and others to decide that question for yourself.  It comes down to believe or not believe.  There are many of us that state categorically we believe that the Bible is the true, literal word of God that can stand alone for itself. The reason that I have done so is after much study and searching, the questions that I had have been answered in such a way that it leaves me no doubts.

So, the Bible doesn't state how Cain or his wife got to a far away land, but is that really necessary to this part of the story?  It is simply a statement of fact on where Cain went.  I''m not sure what else to say on this issue.  Simply, I don't have an answer to your question since the Bible does not specify.

[paris]

FYI -- thought maybe I would state a couple "facts".  I am fourth generation Methodist.  I was raised knowing my faith and living it everyday.  I taught  in  a private Christian school for 18 years and during that time I had Buddist, Muslim, Catholic, atheist families.  We shared our "truths as we know them" on different occasions, especially during Easter and Christmas (because we were a Christian school, the Bible was taught).   The one who comes to mind so clearly is an Iranian mother who came to pick up her son the morning of 9/11. She was terrified.  We quickly held hands and I simply prayed "Dear God please protect your children".  We saw each other a couple of years later and she thanked me for not turning away from her on that horrible day.   You don't know when you will  touch another. I find my way is quiet and "not in your face".  It is what works for me.  I hope I can live a life that shows what I believe without offending or belittling others.  The question Epoman asked was so simple -- yes or no.  But, the debate has gone on for generations and it will always go on.  And that is because we have minds to question and wonder.   Aren't humans wonderful?   If we all agreed, we would be living in Jonestown following Jim Jones.    Shoot---I came out of my corner!  I know better than that!!     

[del]

I am going to go sit I the corner with paris and fc too!!  This has become a bit "silly". If people would just have an open mind and accept others for what they are this world would be a much more peaceful place.  I feel secure enough in my own beliefs that I don't need anybody pushing their beliefs down my throat (I would never do it to anybody).  Just going to church and professing to be a born again Christian does not make anybody a better person than anybody else. Look at all the corruption in all the churches (yes all!!) 

Science is facts.  Fossils and other things can be dated back millions of years.  There is scientific evidence for most things in this world.  If fossils can be dated back millions of years than there must have been a big gap from when the world was first created to when the books of the old testament were written,  if the bible is to be taken literally. 

My philosophy on life is to live my life the way I want (as long as I don't intentionally do something to hurt another person)  and believe the things I want and allow others to do the same. Sure we can discuss why or why not we believe the things we do but not try to make others turn over to our way of thinking. Just because one person thinks something is the truth that does not mean another person has to.  One way to turn people off from even listening is to present your way as the only way!!

Move over fc and paris to make room in the corner for me!!  I'll just watch from now on.

[fc2821]

 

[del]

I'll hold your hand and keep you in that corner from now on paris!! 

[Hemodoc]

I am going to go sit I the corner with paris and fc too!!  This has become a bit "silly". If people would just have an open mind and accept others for what they are this world would be a much more peaceful place.  I feel secure enough in my own beliefs that I don't need anybody pushing their beliefs down my throat (I would never do it to anybody).  Just going to church and professing to be a born again Christian does not make anybody a better person than anybody else. Look at all the corruption in all the churches (yes all!!) 

Science is facts.  Fossils and other things can be dated back millions of years.  There is scientific evidence for most things in this world.  If fossils can be dated back millions of years than there must have been a big gap from when the world was first created to when the books of the old testament were written,  if the bible is to be taken literally. 

My philosophy on life is to live my life the way I want (as long as I don't intentionally do something to hurt another person)  and believe the things I want and allow others to do the same. Sure we can discuss why or why not we believe the things we do but not try to make others turn over to our way of thinking. Just because one person thinks something is the truth that does not mean another person has to.  One way to turn people off from even listening is to present your way as the only way!!

Move over fc and paris to make room in the corner for me!!  I'll just watch from now on.

Dear Del, not sure where saying I don't know an answer that is not specified becomes shoving my beliefs down someone's throat. Not sure I have done anything but spell out what the Bible says and invite others to read it and search it out for themselves. 

In any case, I was saved in 1994 from the study of Bible prophecy that another doctor I knew kept discussing with me.  In 1994 it was actually easier to discuss and debate many differing topics of all sorts even with those of diametrically apposing views in a very uncontentious manner, simply debating the merits of the differing sides through the evidence available for the case in point.  In fact, without this debate that I had over the course of a year and a half, it is likely that I would not have become a born again Christian.  The only thing sorrowful that I can see is that people are no longer able to as easily discuss and debate topics in the same manner as was done in the past.

Del, you are absolutely correct that there must be an evaluation of the current theory of evolution and the Bible.  One or the other is simply not right.  Coming from a science background, the very first thing that I did once I was saved was to look at that issue for myself.  Is it Creation, or instead evolution that we need to consider.  I ended up reading about 8 books on evolution, only one of those being a Christian perspective over the course of 2 months.  The most influential book was  paradoxically a book by Stephen J. Gould where he lambasted all of the opposing evolutionary theories in comparison to his own. 

Many are unaware that Darwinian evolution, that of slow gradual changes is not at all supported in the fossil record.  In fact, Stephen J. Gould and many others instead propose differing "neo-Darwinian" theories of evolution.  Science in such is actually much more fragmented on these issues than many know.  There is no one unifying theory of evolution despite that common misperception.  Stephen J. Gould advocated his own theory called punctuated equilibrium where large changes were made on the periphery of a a large breeding population very rapidly called saltations.  One of the other prevailing neo-Darwinian theories is called the quantum leap theorum where rapid DNA changes occur at differing periods of time.

So, when people talk about science and the theory of evolution, it is not in the least a solidified or universal theory.  When my sister was in grad school getting her Ph.D in paleolimnology, I had an interesting talk with her about the fact that the best theory of evolution was actually creationism.  Mind you, this was about 5 years before I even picked up a Bible and began looking at it critically.  I was a complete supporter of evolution, but the facts for all of the prevailing theories simply didn't add up. That was back in about 1989 when the talk on evolution was much less polarized and people could actually speak their mind.  My sister and I had a good chuckle over that conjecture, but in fact, she had just completed a grad school level course on evolution and the fact that no one really had a good prevailing theory was actually discussed openly back in those days.  Of course today, with our political correctness, no one would ever dare express doubts such as this openly in an academic setting.

So, for the facts, the fossil record speaks quite loudly.  We do not in the least see gradual changes over time resulting in large differences.  Instead, the fossil record shows that species remain remarkably the same over their time on earth.  In such, the Darwinian theory of evolution is simply wrong.   When I took a look at the neo-Darwinian theories, they sounded much more like speculative science fiction than any real science.  The more that I learn about creationism, DNA and the flood, the more reliable the Bible becomes to me.

Just my opinion on this issue and some of the evidence that I considered.  The entire "science" of abiogenesis, or how inorganic materials brewed organic materials that suddenly sprang to life is in deep trouble.  The more we learn of the complexities of life, the more improbable it becomes that life could have originated by chance alone.  A true atheist who did not believe in the big bang or abiogenesis was Sir Fred Hoyle.  His arguments against the development of spontaneous life on earth were all mathematically derived from probabilities.  Of all the evolutionary writings, his is in many ways the most scientifically objective writings we have.  His conclusion, life could not have started on earth through the big bang because there is not enough time or matter to have a random and spontaneous start of life from non-life.  He instead advocated another theory called panspermia, in such that life is everywhere and seed of life came to earth on a meteor or other conveyance, but this theory still does not address the issue of abiogenesis on where life would have started somewhere else in the universe.

Most are likewise unaware that all of the so called scientific radiometric dating techniques are based on unproven assumptions.  I got a minor in math in college and the little I remember from all of that hard effort is that you cannot prove an unknown using an unknown, yet that is exactly what they are doing with the radiometric dating methods that establish the age of the earth and all of these fossils.  So, before people in many ways blindly accept a faith in science that science itself doesn't possess, perhaps looking at some of the actually data would be instructive.

The wonder of a new life such as my new grand daughter should make all wonder on how these things could be by chance alone.  I have looked long and hard over a course of 30 years to the doctorate level and I have not found the answers at all in science.  In fact, the more information we have on the complexity of life leads me right back to the God of the Bible.  Many beside myself have taken this same journey with the same conclusion.  I would recommend all to consider the evidence of evolution and what it really states before having faith in such an unprovable theory.

So Del, when we talk about science being 100% that is truly not the state of the evolution evidence at all.  I hope that this is informative for anyone interested in the issue at hand and perhaps someone will have their own opinion in the contrary.  Perhaps others may actually go and look at what evidence really does exist for evolution.  There may actually be some real surprises along the way.  Just my own personal reflections on some of the issues I have come across in my own quest to answer these questions for myself.  As I said, just my opinion.

Thank you,

Peter

[dwcrawford]

Once several years ago I hired a very intelligent but overly technical man to instruct some of our technical courses.  After a few week, people started catching me in hallways, etc. always commenting something like this:  "Oh Dan, I wish you would teach some of those courses again.  That Bill Guy is just so intelligent that no one can understand a thing he is talking about."

[willowtreewren]

I just can't, as a born again Christian, sit back and just let people believe what they want to without telling the truth as I'm taught.  Any Sunday that I go to Church we are asked to spread the Word and to invite a friend to church.  We believe that we are saving your life eternally if you just accept Jesus as your Saviour.  I just can't let someone say they just believe in a higher power and their god is love and they are good and they know right from wrong and they will just live on a star after they die.  Its not true folks.

I have a good friend that is Sikh (Seek? East Indian) and I don't even know how to approach her.  Their religion is really superstitious.  They don't drive for 6 weeks after having a baby.... they bargin with their god like if you do this I'll do this.  She took 3 days off work to go pray at their church because her baby got well.  It is just so ingrained in her that I am just speechless.

She might say the same thing about your beliefs, Rerun. Just a thought.

Most (not all) folks adopt the religion into which they are born. It is no coincidence. It has to do with how the culture shapes them through early experience.

Wouldn't it be better to give children a wide experience of many faiths and religions and let them choose?

Paris, Rob and Del, move over...

 

[Hemodoc]

Once several years ago I hired a very intelligent but overly technical man to instruct some of our technical courses.  After a few week, people started catching me in hallways, etc. always commenting something like this:  "Oh Dan, I wish you would teach some of those courses again.  That Bill Guy is just so intelligent that no one can understand a thing he is talking about."

Forgive me Dan, but I thought it is the Christians that don't want to take a look at the science and only wish to have blind faith?  Just the basics in the above post on where someone could look at the evidence of evolution, nothing but the basics, nothing technical at all.   If people really want to put their faith in science, then they should really understand openly what they in many ways blindly accept from so called science.  Just my own opinion. 

Thank you,

Peter

[dwcrawford]

The point of my last post was that no matter how smart the dude was, without the proper communications skills, as a teacher, he was accomplishing nothing.

[Stoday]

the Darwinian theory of evolution is simply wrong.    

No it’s not. Your understanding of it is wrong. Even that most conservative of Churches, Rome, and its Pope, accept that evolution occurred.

The entire "science" of abiogenesis, or how inorganic materials brewed organic materials that suddenly sprang to life is in deep trouble.

That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is about the origin of the species, not the origin of life. So it’s invalid to cite issues concerning the origin of life as invalidating evolution.

when people talk about science and the theory of evolution, it is not in the least a solidified or universal theory.

In the 150 years since Darwin published his book “On the Origin of Species” not one example has been found that conflicts with evolution. Not one.

Many are unaware that Darwinian evolution, that of slow gradual changes is not at all supported in the fossil record.

Evolution does not say that change is gradual. It says that to be adopted by the species population, each change is minor and must be an advantage to the species in its environment. With time, and environmental separation from the parent species, a new species may develop. We can see evolution taking place in our lifetime as antibiotics become unusable because bacteria have evolved immunity.

The evidence for the fact of evolution does not rest only, or even principally, on the fossil record.

We do not in the least see gradual changes over time resulting in large differences.  Instead, the fossil record shows that species remain remarkably the same over their time on earth.

Of course. That’s how evolution works. A species arises and gives birth to others but doesn’t itself necessarily die out. So we see conifer trees that evolved early alongside deciduous trees that evolved later.

The wonder of a new life such as my new grand daughter should make all wonder on how these things could be by chance alone.

Evolution never said that life evolved by chance. It evolved by the survival of the fittest.


MY own thoughts on this subject are that if God created man, he made a very poor job of it. Everything is made so that it’s only just good enough on the whole. That means it’s not good enough for some, who consequently suffer. Back pain for example; death giving birth and so on. An engineer builds in safety margins; God does not. Or rather there’s no evolutionary mechanism that gives an incentive for safety margins.

[Rerun]

The point of my last post was that no matter how smart the dude was, without the proper communications skills, as a teacher, he was accomplishing nothing.

Dan is saying he doesn't understand what you are writing.

How is this?  If we came from Apes then why are there still Apes?  For that matter do vegetarians eat animal cookies?

[Rerun]

God was talking to a scientist and the scientist was saying it was no big deal to create people from dirt and that he could do it scientifically.  God said go ahead.  So, the scientist picked up a glob of dirt and God said "wait a minute.... make your own dirt".

                 

[Stoday]

How is this?  If we came from Apes then why are there still Apes? 

We didn't come from apes.

There was a common ancestor from which we and apes evolved.

[Hemodoc]

The point of my last post was that no matter how smart the dude was, without the proper communications skills, as a teacher, he was accomplishing nothing.

Fair enough.  I hope you were able to give this man some help with communication skills.

For myself, I have 30 years of teaching experience in many differing areas on a professional and private basis.  It is one of my favorite duties and pleasures in life.  In fact, not only did I have many of my students show their appreciation for my teaching, but my physician supervisor once told me that I was her favorite physician educator she had ever listened to.

So, not quite sure what the relevance your comment  about communication skills has to do with our current discussion.

[Hemodoc]

the Darwinian theory of evolution is simply wrong.    

No it’s not. Your understanding of it is wrong. Even that most conservative of Churches, Rome, and its Pope, accept that evolution occurred.

The entire "science" of abiogenesis, or how inorganic materials brewed organic materials that suddenly sprang to life is in deep trouble.

That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is about the origin of the species, not the origin of life. So it’s invalid to cite issues concerning the origin of life as invalidating evolution.

when people talk about science and the theory of evolution, it is not in the least a solidified or universal theory.

In the 150 years since Darwin published his book “On the Origin of Species” not one example has been found that conflicts with evolution. Not one.

Many are unaware that Darwinian evolution, that of slow gradual changes is not at all supported in the fossil record.

Evolution does not say that change is gradual. It says that to be adopted by the species population, each change is minor and must be an advantage to the species in its environment. With time, and environmental separation from the parent species, a new species may develop. We can see evolution taking place in our lifetime as antibiotics become unusable because bacteria have evolved immunity.

The evidence for the fact of evolution does not rest only, or even principally, on the fossil record.

We do not in the least see gradual changes over time resulting in large differences.  Instead, the fossil record shows that species remain remarkably the same over their time on earth.

Of course. That’s how evolution works. A species arises and gives birth to others but doesn’t itself necessarily die out. So we see conifer trees that evolved early alongside deciduous trees that evolved later.

The wonder of a new life such as my new grand daughter should make all wonder on how these things could be by chance alone.

Evolution never said that life evolved by chance. It evolved by the survival of the fittest.


MY own thoughts on this subject are that if God created man, he made a very poor job of it. Everything is made so that it’s only just good enough on the whole. That means it’s not good enough for some, who consequently suffer. Back pain for example; death giving birth and so on. An engineer builds in safety margins; God does not. Or rather there’s no evolutionary mechanism that gives an incentive for safety margins.

Dear Stoday, thank you for at least the willingness to express your opinions.

Where do I begin.  First, I thought that we were talking about the issues based on facts and evidence, not on authorities. Since I am not Catholic, I do not at all look to the Pope for guidance on any issues.

Second, on the issue of Darwinian evolution, otherwise also known as gradualism, here is one editorialist viewpoint on the issue:

"Gould and Eldredge proposed punctuated equilibrium as a palaeontologist's view of the history of life: they were describing the palaeontological data available at the time, pointing out that there was no geological evidence to support Charles Darwin's belief that species evolved gradually. Time has shown them to be correct, and their observations are now accepted by most biologists as an accurate account of evolutionary history."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426032.100-ipunctuated-equilibriumi-by-stephen-jay-gould.html

On the issue of abiogenesis, it is quite interesting that when I got my degree in biology in the early 80's, there was no distinction made with abiogenesis and evolution.  It was a continuum that I was taught from chemical evolution to the evolution of the organism.  Now, it is completely separated in a quite artificial way.  Yet, go pick any of the popular evolution authors and guess what will be in ALL of their books? Yup a discussion on abiogenesis.  This is the biggest schizophrenic disconnect in the current concept of the theory of evolution.  I get a great deal of amusement listening to the convoluted explanations on this separation that is a new construct in the teaching of evolution as if ignoring the origins issue will improve their theories of how species change over time.  Further, the reason that this separation has taken place over the last few years is because of the evolving complexity of abiogenesis, life from non life.  To date, there is absolutely not even one example of that ever occurring that any scientist can point to.  Instead of getting more evidence to support abiogenesis it is going into the toilet so to speak.  Darwin thought the living cell was a quite simple structure, but we now know it is exceedingly complex and getting more complex all the time by new issues that keep coming to light.

So, in the ancient days of my education, chemical evolution to organismal evolution was taught in a coordinated sequence.

Third, as far as conflicting evolutionary examples in the last one hundred and fifty years, perhaps you should do a google search on evolutionary conundrums.  My search got over a million hits on evolutionary conundrums.  Take a look at a few of them, quite interesting reading really.  The take home message of most of the so called evolution science that I have read is boiled down in a simple word: conjecture.

As far as the issue of a poorly designed man, are you really serious about our poor design.  As a board certified internal medicine specialist, all I can say is that the more I learn of the human body, the more in awe I become of the overwhelming safety clearances that was designed into our bodies.  Take some time and look at all of the things that the kidney does.  Just absolutely amazing.  Poor design, not a chance. 

Just some of my opinions.

[Hemodoc]

How is this?  If we came from Apes then why are there still Apes? 

We didn't come from apes.

There was a common ancestor from which we and apes evolved.

Dear Stoday, most people do not understand that the "Missing Link" isn't just for human evolution, it is for all evolution of all species.  So if we have a common ancestor what is it if you know?

[Hemodoc]

The point of my last post was that no matter how smart the dude was, without the proper communications skills, as a teacher, he was accomplishing nothing.

Dan is saying he doesn't understand what you are writing.

How is this?  If we came from Apes then why are there still Apes?  For that matter do vegetarians eat animal cookies?

Dear Rerun, unfortunately, most people that say that they believe in evolution do not actually understand what paleontology says about the fossil record and the lack of transitional forms between the fossils recovered.  There are so many examples of incorrect family trees such as the evolution of horses.  Some are outright frauds.  Here is a discussion on this issue.

http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/F98V7T9P299/productId/19833/THE_EVOLUTION_OF_THE_HORSE_SERIES_IS_A_FRAUD