i found this funny

[f U z ! o N]

so im at my christian gym, The Lord's Gym, and im reading the TIME magazine article about Titaalik Rosae (sp?) and this scientist said it was our great great great great cousin. I know im going to get bashed for this, but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.


bash away.

 

[Willtor]

Why did you believe in evolution, before? Did that sit well with you, theologically?

 

[Valkhorn]

so im at my christian gym, The Lord's Gym, and im reading the TIME magazine article about Titaalik Rosae (sp?) and this scientist said it was our great great great great cousin. I know im going to get bashed for this, but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.

First, can you give us a quote?

Second, since evolution is a scientific theory based on factual evidence, why do you think that just 'not believing in it' will make it go away? Evolution is not a belief.

It still is the best theory which explains the factual evidence of biological diversity.

 

[Micaiah]

so im at my christian gym, The Lord's Gym, and im reading the TIME magazine article about Titaalik Rosae (sp?) and this scientist said it was our great great great great cousin. I know im going to get bashed for this, but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.


bash away.

Glad you saw the light. Since God is the Creator, it makes a lot of sense to hear what He says about our origins. He made us in His image. We are unique among all of God's creation and were created to be His children.

 

[Micaiah]

...since evolution is a scientific theory based on factual evidence, why do you think that just 'not believing in it' will make it go away?

The factual evidence supports what God has revealled about creation, and that our universe and life was the result of His creative power. Divine revelation is superior to human speculation.

Evolution is not a belief.

For many it is derived from the idea that human origins can only be explained with reference to naturalistic causes. In that way it is a belief.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

so im at my christian gym, The Lord's Gym, and im reading the TIME magazine article about Titaalik Rosae (sp?) and this scientist said it was our great great great great cousin. I know im going to get bashed for this, but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.


bash away.

Yeah, so?

 

[f U z ! o N]

Why did you believe in evolution, before? Did that sit well with you, theologically?

it did at first, then i realized it was weaking my faith and it seemed absurd to believe in so i changed my views.

 

[pantsman52]

The factual evidence supports what God has revealled about creation, and that our universe and life was the result of His creative power. Divine revelation is superior to human speculation.

If you keep saying it, maybe it will become true!

 

[Hydra009]

Ok, I guess my first question is: There are Christian gyms? Say what? What else am I missing out on, Christian cars and Christian computers?

Second of course would be: Are you serious? Because this sounds awfully similar to the "my granddaddy wasn't a monkey" argument from creationists.

For those who don't have Time, this would be the article right?

The thing about speciation is that all currently living species can be traced to extinct ones, and as such, pick any two species and they share a common ancestor. So yes, homo sapiens and Tiktaalik roseae can ultimately be traced back to a common ancestor. Are we cousins? Not really. Tiktaalik was around 375 million years ago, humans have only been around for about 5 million years. That's an extremely distant relationship.

The reason why it's important is that the fossil represents a transitional with both fish and tetrapod characterists - demonstrating that fish did indeed evolve the characterists which would later give rise to terrestrial species like amphibians and reptiles. It's the "missing link" that creationists have been asking for, and it was found precisely where scientists predicted it would be found. Not bad for "just a theory", eh?

Now about the cousin part. Why would you find it laughable that species are related to one another through common descent? Is this just an emotional reaction - being compared to something that one doesn't highly regard taken as an degrading insult? Does the fact that humans are related to other species somehow diminish humanity or make humans seem less special?

Because if that's the reason, why stop there? Heliocentrism means that the Earth is not the center of universe and more and therefore that humans are not the center of importance in the universe, so it must be wrong.

"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" -John Calvin

And yet heliocentrism can and does coexist with Christianity, just like evolution:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." -Isaac Newton

 

[Willtor]

it did at first, then i realized it was weaking my faith and it seemed absurd to believe in so i changed my views.

Please read my last blog entry (it's very short). Be very careful how you say these things.

I think we evolved, but God forbid I should ever say that I believe in evolution.

Frankly, I don't really care too much what you think about nature (and I'm afraid I may draw the ire of others on this board, but... you know), but please be careful with how you say these things. Of course it weakened your faith. It should never have been the object of faith in the first place. How can a man serve two masters?

 

[Ioinc]

so im at my christian gym, The Lord's Gym, and im reading the TIME magazine article about Titaalik Rosae (sp?) and this scientist said it was our great great great great cousin. I know im going to get bashed for this, but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.


bash away.

At a christian gym.... the lords gym... reading the lords copy of time magazine... lifthing the lords weight.... drying the equipment with the lords towl.....

I was at my gym... the atheist gym... the other day playing racquetball. I was trying to use the angles of trigonometry to hit the ball in the corner so my opponent could not return it... when I realized we all came from a common place.

 

[shinbits]

The thing about speciation is that all currently living species can be traced to extinct ones, and as such, pick any two species and they share a common ancestor.

I've heard this a few times. But do all living species theoretically go back to one common ancestor? If so, what is that common ancestor that we all go back to? Is a certain single-celled organism?

This question, btw, is not for debative purposes, just information's sake. So let's all put our bats and knives away.

 

[Nooj]

I've heard this a few times. But do all living species theoretically go back to one common ancestor?

Yes.

If so, what is that common ancestor that we all go back to?

Don't know.

Is a certain single-celled organism?

Might have been.

 

[Ophis]

so im at my christian gym, The Lord's Gym, and im reading the TIME magazine article about Titaalik Rosae (sp?) and this scientist said it was our great great great great cousin. I know im going to get bashed for this, but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.


bash away.

OK...

So basically what happened is, you used to believe in evolution and common ancestry. Then you read an article talking about common ancestry that someone had left on God's treadmill. And you found it a little wacky. So now you're going with the obviously less wacky talking snake theory.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.

If you thought that was funny, you should read stuff from Ken Ham, then you'll really get a laugh!

 

[Silent Bob]

But do all living species theoretically go back to one common ancestor?

Theoretically yes. We cannot be 100% sure there was only one but from the branching of the tree of life we find support that it could be only one species, the rest if they existed, are extinct.

If so, what is that common ancestor that we all go back to? Is a certain single-celled organism?

It is called LUCA (last universal common ancestor) or LUA. It was probably single-celled but not simple, or the first life form.

 

[Apos]

so im at my christian gym, The Lord's Gym....

So tell me: which ways more, a pound of brains, or a pound of muscles?

(Wonder Shozen Guy: Muscles! Muscles! Muscles! Always Muscles!)

 

[michabo]

It is called LUCA (last universal common ancestor) or LUA. It was probably single-celled but not simple, or the first life form.

With the addendum that, because of horizontal gene transfer, the very early tree of life would have several distinct groups of organisms, and not a single organism or a single species of organisms.

There was a SciAm article which discussed it. I left my copy at home, but Wikipedia quotes the article:

"If there had never been any lateral gene transfer, all these individual gene trees would have the same topology (the same branching order), and the ancestral genes at the root of each tree would have all been present in the last universal common ancestor, a single ancient cell. But extensive transfer means that neither is the case: gene trees will differ (although many will have regions of similar topology)and there would never have been a single cell that could be called the last universal common ancestor.

"As Woese has written, 'the ancestor cannot have been a particular organism, a single organismal lineage. It was communal, a loosely knit, diverse conglomeration of primitive cells that evolved as a unit, and it eventually developed to a stage where it broke into several distinct communities, which in their turn became the three primary lines of descent (bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes)' In other words, early cells, each having relatively few genes, differed in many ways. By swapping genes freely, they shared various of their talents with their contemporaries. Eventually this collection of eclectic and changeable cells coalesced into the three basic domains known today. These domains become recognisable because much (though by no means all) of the gene transfer that occurs these days goes on within domains." (Uprooting the Tree of Life by W. Ford Doolitte., Scientific American, Feb 2000. Quoted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer)

 

[michabo]

I know im going to get bashed for this, but i found it so funny that i laughed at it, got up, and realized i was done believing in evolution.

Was this "belief" in evolution a faith, comparable to religious faith?

Your OP makes it sound like you drop a belief because you don't like its advocates, and not for any flaw in the belief itself. But your response to Wiltor sounds like this article was just a feather which made you believe there was a conflict between evolution and your faith. If so, then the article you read was irrelevant - it could just as as easily have been anything else.

Comments?

 

[Q2004]

Glad you saw the light. Since God is the Creator, it makes a lot of sense to hear what He says about our origins. He made us in His image. We are unique among all of God's creation and were created to be His children.

Religious narccisism is soo refreshing. There's really not nearly enough of it out there.