brianleahy
Colonel Panic
I'm not a messiah, just a very naughty boy.
I do, however, always try to look on the bright side of life.
I do, however, always try to look on the bright side of life.
They want to forget Darwin ... [help]
- Thread starter Giaguara
- Start date
- Status
g/re/p
I can haz cigar?
Revisionism Street
Words and Music by Bob Seger, Craig Frost, Tim Mitchell
I saw them standing on a corner
Bathed in ordinary light
They turned away and started walkin'
And faded off into the night
Some years ago they were in fashion
Tonight they couldn't get a seat
They've got themselves a brand new history
From Revisionism Street
Written on Revisionism Street
The years of sacrifice and struggle
The arc of stardom's natural course
The inevitable decline
The wolves waiting at the door
";Let's dig up something really nasty";
";Let's get some clay around their feet";
";No ones memory is sacred 'round here
On Revisionism Street";
";We'll never be in the arena";
";Hey, we'll never have to compete";
";We'll never write a classic novel";
";And we'll never have to be discreet!";
Alfred Hitchcock, Isaac Newton
Elvis Presley, Captain Bligh
They're heroic or pathetic
Depending on which book you buy
Charles Dickens, Jackie Gleason
Burn 'em all, turn up the heat
If there's no truth, use innuendo
this is Revisionism Street
";Let's find ourselves some old acquaintance";
";Let's see what they have to say";
";Some disgruntled ex-employee";
";Presto! Payday!";
A tree falls in the forest
A million copies go to print
Some parasitic little feeder
Sits back and makes a mint
Somewhere a baby's softly sleeping
lt's innocence complete
Unaware they're workin' late tonight
On Revisionism Street
Words and Music by Bob Seger, Craig Frost, Tim Mitchell
I saw them standing on a corner
Bathed in ordinary light
They turned away and started walkin'
And faded off into the night
Some years ago they were in fashion
Tonight they couldn't get a seat
They've got themselves a brand new history
From Revisionism Street
Written on Revisionism Street
The years of sacrifice and struggle
The arc of stardom's natural course
The inevitable decline
The wolves waiting at the door
";Let's dig up something really nasty";
";Let's get some clay around their feet";
";No ones memory is sacred 'round here
On Revisionism Street";
";We'll never be in the arena";
";Hey, we'll never have to compete";
";We'll never write a classic novel";
";And we'll never have to be discreet!";
Alfred Hitchcock, Isaac Newton
Elvis Presley, Captain Bligh
They're heroic or pathetic
Depending on which book you buy
Charles Dickens, Jackie Gleason
Burn 'em all, turn up the heat
If there's no truth, use innuendo
this is Revisionism Street
";Let's find ourselves some old acquaintance";
";Let's see what they have to say";
";Some disgruntled ex-employee";
";Presto! Payday!";
A tree falls in the forest
A million copies go to print
Some parasitic little feeder
Sits back and makes a mint
Somewhere a baby's softly sleeping
lt's innocence complete
Unaware they're workin' late tonight
On Revisionism Street
MDLarson
Registered
I seem to have missed my email notifications, and ugh, I dread getting into long discussions... But, I'll do my best to defend what I believe.
I don't necessarilly know how to begin this, but maybe you can bear with me...
The issue of creation is vitally important to the Christian. The entire basis of Christianity lies in the truth of the Creation.
Now, I happen to believe that science actually confirms the Biblical record. If you have trouble with that statement, I'll rephrase: I believe that evidence we find on earth and the universe at large can be interpreted nicely in a Biblical worldview.
There's no doubt about itChristians cannot accept evolution and still be Bible-believing Christians. (If you are a Christian and disagree with me, let's do private messages please.)
Perhaps you can supply me with some questions I can attempt to answer regarding science vs. the Bible. That way I'm not shooting in the dark hoping to strike a chord with anybody.
Also, let me clarify my stance on things. My goal is not to convince you that you are wrong. My goal is to convince you that it is reasonable to believe in God or Jesus or the validity of the Bible.
By the way, my primary reference for creation issues is http://www.answersingenesis.org/.
I don't necessarilly know how to begin this, but maybe you can bear with me...
The issue of creation is vitally important to the Christian. The entire basis of Christianity lies in the truth of the Creation.
Now, I happen to believe that science actually confirms the Biblical record. If you have trouble with that statement, I'll rephrase: I believe that evidence we find on earth and the universe at large can be interpreted nicely in a Biblical worldview.
There's no doubt about itChristians cannot accept evolution and still be Bible-believing Christians. (If you are a Christian and disagree with me, let's do private messages please.)
Perhaps you can supply me with some questions I can attempt to answer regarding science vs. the Bible. That way I'm not shooting in the dark hoping to strike a chord with anybody.
Also, let me clarify my stance on things. My goal is not to convince you that you are wrong. My goal is to convince you that it is reasonable to believe in God or Jesus or the validity of the Bible.
By the way, my primary reference for creation issues is http://www.answersingenesis.org/.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
MDLarson said:
Are you sure you want to go down this road again? The last two times we did this you took it all very personally.
If you are now ready to treat your beliefs being targeted as different from you being targeted, and are not going to take a critical review of your answers personally, I'm all for this.
Just remember that we stopped before at your request. That is why I am asking if you are really ready for this again.
MDLarson
Registered
I came across this great audio track (Real format). "Ken Ham: Can we really trust the Bible? Defending the Christian faith in a scientific age"
There is a reasonable gap between passing the Bible off as myth and believing every sentence and word for its literal meaning. There is room for poetry, and allegory. Take for example the one you provided. What does the hand of God actually look like? I don't know, and I'm willing to bet it's not a flesh-and-blood hand attached to a 500 foot giant that is God. The example you cited is probably the best way the authors could write it down. Not saying that God could not have made it appear like an actual hand, either. Do you have a verse reference?
I appreciate your question: the things that the Bible says happened (especially in the Old Testament) seem to show up today in the supermarket aisles (you know, those quirky magazines that have the world's largest babies, etc.).markceltic said:
There is a reasonable gap between passing the Bible off as myth and believing every sentence and word for its literal meaning. There is room for poetry, and allegory. Take for example the one you provided. What does the hand of God actually look like? I don't know, and I'm willing to bet it's not a flesh-and-blood hand attached to a 500 foot giant that is God. The example you cited is probably the best way the authors could write it down. Not saying that God could not have made it appear like an actual hand, either. Do you have a verse reference?
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
Well, first, let's acknowledge that there are at least two different ideas here.
First, there is the process of evolution.
Then there is proposition that humans and modern apes have a common ancestry.
The process of evolution itself has three components: reproduction, mutation, and natural selection. Each of these components can be shown beyond any reasonable doubt to exist. Evolution as a process DOES occur, and this can easily be demonstrated in a controlled setting, and (at least at the microbial level) on a time scale of just days.
The other issue is the propositon that humans and modern apes had a common ancestry. (As you may already be aware, nobody has ever seriously proposed that humans are descended from modern apes.) This, I think you'll agree, is the issue that is important in this context?
One thing that puzzles me is: if you believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, how do you account for the degree of genetic variation that we observe? Mutation introduces some variation, but most staunch creationists profess a disbelief that mutation can ever be anything but harmful. So, how to account for a species with individuals as widely varying as Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer and Shaquille "Shaq" O'Neal?
But now let me propose a few broader thoughts:
You feel that belief divine creation is vital for Christian faith. What about the rest of the bible? Must it all be literally true, not just metaphorically? Would the slightest flaw undermine the whole ball of wax?
Notice, I am NOT asking if you think that the Bible IS flawed. What I am asking you is, would it undermine your faith if it was proved to you that it WAS?
And lastly: while again, you may think that the Bible is perfect, can you imagine ANY circumstances, where ANY evidence could be presented that would make you doubt any part of it?
If your answer is no, then really, we are wasting our breath. Unconditional blind faith can be a powerful thing, but it is wholly incompatible with the very concept of a debate.
First, there is the process of evolution.
Then there is proposition that humans and modern apes have a common ancestry.
The process of evolution itself has three components: reproduction, mutation, and natural selection. Each of these components can be shown beyond any reasonable doubt to exist. Evolution as a process DOES occur, and this can easily be demonstrated in a controlled setting, and (at least at the microbial level) on a time scale of just days.
The other issue is the propositon that humans and modern apes had a common ancestry. (As you may already be aware, nobody has ever seriously proposed that humans are descended from modern apes.) This, I think you'll agree, is the issue that is important in this context?
One thing that puzzles me is: if you believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, how do you account for the degree of genetic variation that we observe? Mutation introduces some variation, but most staunch creationists profess a disbelief that mutation can ever be anything but harmful. So, how to account for a species with individuals as widely varying as Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer and Shaquille "Shaq" O'Neal?
But now let me propose a few broader thoughts:
You feel that belief divine creation is vital for Christian faith. What about the rest of the bible? Must it all be literally true, not just metaphorically? Would the slightest flaw undermine the whole ball of wax?
Notice, I am NOT asking if you think that the Bible IS flawed. What I am asking you is, would it undermine your faith if it was proved to you that it WAS?
And lastly: while again, you may think that the Bible is perfect, can you imagine ANY circumstances, where ANY evidence could be presented that would make you doubt any part of it?
If your answer is no, then really, we are wasting our breath. Unconditional blind faith can be a powerful thing, but it is wholly incompatible with the very concept of a debate.
MDLarson
Registered
I don't know man. You in particular offer up a tough debate, and I have felt unfairly attacked by you in the past, and that's why you might say I took it personally. I admit freely that I'm not a very good debater, but my debating skills mean nothing to my beliefs. That's why I keep coming back in these debates.RacerX said:
I do not want to go down that road again where people just get frustrated. I do want to express my beliefs and test them against yours. If it's gonna work, you guys gotta be patient with me. Is what I'm saying making sense, or am I just being immature?
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Well, we all have beliefs. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and we are all free to express them.
When you ask others to put your beliefs to the test... that takes it out side of "to each their own" and puts it on the table to be examined in the harshest light in the most critical detail.
My question is, why do you want to do this again? No one is questioning your beliefs. Most of us know what your beliefs are and have no problem with them. But when tested, you have had a tendency to get very frustrated.
If you recall, I ask very much the same question I am asking now the last time... and it ended up the same way as before that.
There isn't any reason to prove your faith here. You aren't losing face if you don't confront other people's beliefs.
You say you felt unfairly attacked, I'm letting you know that if you felt that way before, you'll most likely feel that way again (unless you have come to the point of differentiating between what you are holding out for examination and yourself).
There is a BIG difference between expressing your beliefs and having to test them against someone else's. Beliefs are not a sport or contest, they are personal. You take this personally because your beliefs are personal. For me, mathematics and science are best practiced without personal attachment, so I don't take this stuff personally.
Maybe we could start this out by finding out why you feel the need to test your beliefs against those of others. Is faith not enough? Why do you need or care about scientific proof?
When you ask others to put your beliefs to the test... that takes it out side of "to each their own" and puts it on the table to be examined in the harshest light in the most critical detail.
My question is, why do you want to do this again? No one is questioning your beliefs. Most of us know what your beliefs are and have no problem with them. But when tested, you have had a tendency to get very frustrated.
If you recall, I ask very much the same question I am asking now the last time... and it ended up the same way as before that.
There isn't any reason to prove your faith here. You aren't losing face if you don't confront other people's beliefs.
You say you felt unfairly attacked, I'm letting you know that if you felt that way before, you'll most likely feel that way again (unless you have come to the point of differentiating between what you are holding out for examination and yourself).
There is a BIG difference between expressing your beliefs and having to test them against someone else's. Beliefs are not a sport or contest, they are personal. You take this personally because your beliefs are personal. For me, mathematics and science are best practiced without personal attachment, so I don't take this stuff personally.
Maybe we could start this out by finding out why you feel the need to test your beliefs against those of others. Is faith not enough? Why do you need or care about scientific proof?
Interesting that ... 99 % of the people in Italy are (statistically, not in practise) Catholic - and the evelution theory is taught as one part of the general knowledge, education, as it is one of the theories that is considered essential to know. If christianity and evolution theory would not coexist, .. only one of them, that is EITHER christianity, or evolution theory, was taught in Europe. I think in ALL European countries they do teach both.
Being taught both, I do think evlution theory is so vague that it's hard to take points of it to tell they are wrong - thus it seems mainly correct. But I've never found any sense in the christian way of thinking, I remember when I was 4 and my grandma died how people were telling me how she got to heaven etc.. it didn't appeal me. It seemed all rituals, all fake. And that not as a reaction to evolution etc theories - I read somethign about the evolution stuff when I was in school, at my teens, and the religion was something my mum (unsuccessfully) tried to brainwash me with.
In Europe when they teach you evolution theory in school, they also comment it that there are some states in USA where the evolution theory is not taught because of the (christian) conservatives. I thought at that time that it was weird, in a country where in so many other things they are forward, to make such reaction to such a simple theory. :-/
Being taught both, I do think evlution theory is so vague that it's hard to take points of it to tell they are wrong - thus it seems mainly correct. But I've never found any sense in the christian way of thinking, I remember when I was 4 and my grandma died how people were telling me how she got to heaven etc.. it didn't appeal me. It seemed all rituals, all fake. And that not as a reaction to evolution etc theories - I read somethign about the evolution stuff when I was in school, at my teens, and the religion was something my mum (unsuccessfully) tried to brainwash me with.
In Europe when they teach you evolution theory in school, they also comment it that there are some states in USA where the evolution theory is not taught because of the (christian) conservatives. I thought at that time that it was weird, in a country where in so many other things they are forward, to make such reaction to such a simple theory. :-/
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
dlloyd said:brian: I noticed you used the two from the Apple ad
But in that case, why the difference between African natives and Eurasians, for example?
I know Verne Troyer was in an Apple advertisement, but was Shaq? The Powerbook ad on the airplane featured a very tall Asian athlete, not Shaq.
(Before I go on, let me interject that, although it is certain that some of what I was taught in public school in the 70s may now be either out-of-date or decidedly un-PC, this IS what I was told).
I was once taught that there are some (modest) survival values for some of the racial differences we see amongst humans.
For instance: the distinctive eyelid shape in of people of asian descent is the result of an extra fold of skin, which is believed to offer some extra protection for the eyes in cold climates. The hypothesis here is that this phenotype originated in the frigid climates of Tibet and the Himalayas.
I will admit that I have not heard this particular theory repeated often, but I don't know if that's because it's been discredited (which happens frequently via the scientific method) or because drawing ANY attention to racial differences (even when that attention is purely clinical and scientific) can result in cries of racism.
It is also clear that darker skin offers greater protection from UV solar radiation, as this quote (http://my.webmd.com/hw/cancer/aa32173.asp?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}) from webmd.com establishes:
Hence, before humans had invented sunscreen and when they spent more of their time outdoors than indoors, populations living under intense sunlight almost year-round were more likely to survive long enough to reproduce if they had greater natural protection from skin cancer. Hence, the dark-skin genes had a better chance of being passed along. This can be seen as an example of human evolution (although not, in this case, to the extent of producing a different species.)
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
dlloyd said:
Yes, human evolution, even.
In the name of full disclosure, let me say this:
Paleontologists and evolutionary scientists believe Africa is the cradle of humanity, that the first true humans lived there. Hence it stands to reason that he first humans had this environmentally-crucial trait (dark skin) which their pre-human ancestors had evolved.
Humans spread out of Africa and eventually into Europe, Asia, etc. where the sun is not as intense and cloudy days are more common. At the same time, the cooler climates encouraged them to wear more clothing and stay indoors more. Thus the environmental and 'lifestyle' pressures to maintain a high degree of natural UV protection were eased. Paler skin colors could then emege.
This is an example of what might be called 'evolution by omission' -- a trait faded as the evolutionary pressure to maintain it was eased.
MDLarson
Registered
I would be one of those creationists who don't believe in a helpful [long-term / pass-me-down] mutation. Somebody on this forum once provided a case for a positive mutation, but I didn't follow up on it.brianleahy said:
As far as the variation in the human species goes, I think it is analogous to the different breeds we see in dogs. I'm 95% sure "canine" consists of one "species," yet we have a huge variety of breeds that can (usually) inter-breed successfully. Given enough generations and selective breeding, one can eventually come out with purebreds or mutts. The genetic code is all there.
Similarly, Adam and Eve would have been created with all the genetic code for all the variation we see today in humans. I remember reading about one case in New Zealand or Australia where a black and white man and woman (I forget who was what) had two twins and one of the twins appeared completely black and the other completely white. The point is, we did not mutate our different features. These features are simply genetic traits.
Please let me know if this doesn't make sense or the point is missed.
Good point, and worth asking of me. To clarify, I do make room for errors in interpretations / versions (King James, NIV, etc.) from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. In addition, meanings change over the years, which have been responsible for some confusion when it comes to what the Bible actually says.brianleahy said:
However, you are asking more than that. You are asking me if my faith will be shaken if any part of the Bible is proven, beyond a doubt, for real, wrong. Yes, my faith would be shaken because so much of my faith rests on what I know from the validity of the Bible.
I feel like I am inviting a hailstorm of critizisms about the Bible upon my head, and that if I fail to answer any of them satisfactorily, I would be labeled a blind sheep and lose respect. I fear this because I don't know enough about the Bible's heritage, or Greek or Hebrew, or other things that a scientific person would appreciate. More than anything, I want to talk about WHAT I KNOW.
RacerX, thank you for your last post; it made sense to me. I now think the source of my frustration is when people challenge me with questions I cannot answer, and don't let me talk about what I want to talk about. I get like, 5 people asking critical questions directed at me, and I feel like nobody's even listening to my good points.RacerX said:
If you can truly divorce yourself from any emotional attachment to the origins argument, I envy you to a degree. But because so much of my faith rests in the truth of the Bible, I can't help but take it personally when others make fun of it or dismiss it as pure myth out of hand. I feel as though I have thought out my faith well enough, and when people dismiss my position so lightly, it is insulting to me.RacerX said:
Simple faith is certainly NOT enough for me. I believe that if God dod not create the universe in six days, he is a liar. If I put my faith in a liar, I am a fool.
I hope I'm making sense, and would very much like to talk about things we can all grapple with. I'll try not to feel personally attacked.
dlloyd
Official Pianist
Let's take this as an example: couldn't the change from a wolf to a Chihuahua be considered 'evolution'? They're certainly descended from a common origin, that has been proven, but there is obviously a great number of differences between one and the other. Differences created of selection (by man) and time.
Change that to Natural Selection and time, and I think you have what's usually referred to as 'evolution'. Is that correct?
I'm not attacking you, I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think.
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
The various breeds of domestic dogs are indeed all the same species -- you could easily cross a Great Dane with a Chihuahua (though I'd recommend the Dane be the mother). All domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and the extreme variation we see is the product of ARTIFICIAL selection - man manipulating the interbreeding of individuals to produce desired traits. This is analogous in some ways to evolution, except that the desires & whims of human masters are the controlling factor, rather than the requirements of survival.
It is worth noting that purebred dogs - especially the larger breeds - often suffer from certain health problems rarely seen on wolves -- such as arthritis, epilepsy and heart problems. This is caused by inbreeding.
On a somewhat different subject:
One of the biggest obstacles to a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve is what is called "Mitochondrial DNA" - or mtDNA as it is often abbreviated.
A great summary of mtDNA can be read here:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/dnatext.htm#Mitochondrial DNA Background
...but I will summarize here:
Mitochondria are 'organelles' - a component of living animal cells, which assist the cell in the extraction of energy from food. Mitochondria have their own DNA, which is separate from the DNA (called 'nuclear' DNA) of the cell as a whole.
This fact has led to a theory that the distant ancestors of modern mitochondria were free-floating organisms, which at some point in time formed a symbiotic relationship with animals that persists even to this day. The animal's cells feed and protect the mitochondria, and the mitochondria help the cell metabolize food.
Mitochondria behave like single-celled organisms in many ways, including that they reproduce by mitosis - asexually. When your cells divide, your mitochondria also divide, and half of them go with each copy of the cell.
And here's where it gets interesting: Although your 'nuclear' DNA is a mixture of your mother's and your father's, when sperm and egg unite the egg provides 100% of the Mitochondria -- and thus, 100% of your mtDNA.
Hence, mtDNA is inherited in a direct, unbroken maternal line, that is never mixed together with a father's mtDNA. Any human being, male or female, has the same mtDNA as his or her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc.
This presents an obvious problem for the tale of Adam and Eve: if Genesis was literally true, then every single human being who has ever lived should have the exact same mtDNA (Eve's) but they don't. Even allowing for rare mutations, the differences should be very, very small (especially if you subscribe to the proposition that the earth is a mere 6000 years old, which would make the total number of human generations relatively small.)
And yet this universal commonality is not seen, as evidenced by the fact that the FBI (see the website I mentioned) uses mtDNA for forensic tests on a regular basis. Persons with no known maternal ancestors in common virtually always have completely different mtDNA.
On an entirely different subject:
I do not envy your position as you have stated it. Your faith is important to you, but you fear that you will one day learn something that irreparably undermines it. Furthermore, you expect this would be profoundly upsetting to you. It must be very unsettling.
I applaud your enthusiasm for seeking the truth, but (believing as **I** do) I suspect you will one day either have to curtail your search, accept a more metaphorical view of Christian beliefs, or else face that terrible disillusionment you fear.
It is worth noting that purebred dogs - especially the larger breeds - often suffer from certain health problems rarely seen on wolves -- such as arthritis, epilepsy and heart problems. This is caused by inbreeding.
On a somewhat different subject:
One of the biggest obstacles to a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve is what is called "Mitochondrial DNA" - or mtDNA as it is often abbreviated.
A great summary of mtDNA can be read here:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/dnatext.htm#Mitochondrial DNA Background
...but I will summarize here:
Mitochondria are 'organelles' - a component of living animal cells, which assist the cell in the extraction of energy from food. Mitochondria have their own DNA, which is separate from the DNA (called 'nuclear' DNA) of the cell as a whole.
This fact has led to a theory that the distant ancestors of modern mitochondria were free-floating organisms, which at some point in time formed a symbiotic relationship with animals that persists even to this day. The animal's cells feed and protect the mitochondria, and the mitochondria help the cell metabolize food.
Mitochondria behave like single-celled organisms in many ways, including that they reproduce by mitosis - asexually. When your cells divide, your mitochondria also divide, and half of them go with each copy of the cell.
And here's where it gets interesting: Although your 'nuclear' DNA is a mixture of your mother's and your father's, when sperm and egg unite the egg provides 100% of the Mitochondria -- and thus, 100% of your mtDNA.
Hence, mtDNA is inherited in a direct, unbroken maternal line, that is never mixed together with a father's mtDNA. Any human being, male or female, has the same mtDNA as his or her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc.
This presents an obvious problem for the tale of Adam and Eve: if Genesis was literally true, then every single human being who has ever lived should have the exact same mtDNA (Eve's) but they don't. Even allowing for rare mutations, the differences should be very, very small (especially if you subscribe to the proposition that the earth is a mere 6000 years old, which would make the total number of human generations relatively small.)
And yet this universal commonality is not seen, as evidenced by the fact that the FBI (see the website I mentioned) uses mtDNA for forensic tests on a regular basis. Persons with no known maternal ancestors in common virtually always have completely different mtDNA.
On an entirely different subject:
I do not envy your position as you have stated it. Your faith is important to you, but you fear that you will one day learn something that irreparably undermines it. Furthermore, you expect this would be profoundly upsetting to you. It must be very unsettling.
I applaud your enthusiasm for seeking the truth, but (believing as **I** do) I suspect you will one day either have to curtail your search, accept a more metaphorical view of Christian beliefs, or else face that terrible disillusionment you fear.
dlloyd
Official Pianist
brian: is the 6000 year number from the Bible? If so, how can that possibly be true, seeing as certain artifacts are dated, via unquestionable scientific methods, to be at the very least, several million years old. I can explain the dating methods if you like, I just took a class on it, but I assume most of you have heard of Carbon 14 dating though, which is one form of it.
And even if the mtDNA came from Eve and was mutated, that would be a form of 'positive mutation', which to quote MDLarson: "I would be one of those creationists who don't believe in a helpful [long-term / pass-me-down] mutation."
Either way, it would be against his belief system.
Well, this thread is very interesting, I've never had opinions like this before
And even if the mtDNA came from Eve and was mutated, that would be a form of 'positive mutation', which to quote MDLarson: "I would be one of those creationists who don't believe in a helpful [long-term / pass-me-down] mutation."
Either way, it would be against his belief system.
Well, this thread is very interesting, I've never had opinions like this before
- Status