Re: Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career

"On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:49:18 -0500, in article
<dJlYj.1357$mh5.1131@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Suzanne stated..."


"TomS" <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:221117689.00011d2b.070.0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:22:29 GMT, in article
<b27034l4qb5mpr27usdbs8tc7u3jpqabv5@xxxxxxx>, Ye Old One stated..."

On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[...snip...]
I'm not related to any celery,

Yes you are. All life on Earth is related.
[...snip...]

There is no question about that.

Celery is edible. If our food weren't related to us,
then it wouldn't be nourishing.

Even creationists should agree to that, with the only
dispute being the details of the relationship.

A creationist could believe that an intelligent designer
deliberately designed different forms of life to be
related. Or that the intelligent designer were somehow
constrained by the properties of matter and the laws of
nature that there was only one way that life could be
designed. I've read some creationist writings which say
that the great similarities of living things are the mark
of a common designer.

As you may or may not know the Bible says that the
intelligent designer is God. It says that he created
"Kinds" a category of taxa that is on the Genus or
Family levels and probably not the Species levels.
There are verses that say that man was created from
a earth, but certain animals are created from their
own kind of earth (Psalm 104:29-30 "their dust").
We are not descended from one another. Man was the
last thing created (and woman). Man came from the
earth, and he was not descended from celery.

You are giving a very free interpretation of what
the Bible says.

That's OK with me, you have every right to do that.
And I'm not going to argue with you about your own
private interpretation of the text.

If you care to think that God did not create each
individual, but rather created some categories of
things, and let something else take over, once the
"kinds" were created - well, to tell the truth, I
find that rather strange, but that's your belief.

What I was saying is that there is something in
common, a great deal in common, among all living
things on earth. All living things are related.
That relationship might not be one of common
descent. But it is beyond any doubt that there
is a lot in common among all living things.


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... All life on Earth is related. ... A creationist could believe that an intelligent designer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin IS Wrong (OBVIOUSLY)
    ... is a fraction of life on earth. ... YOU are the one blubbering that such jumps are so common that it is ... And the evidence for common descent lies in a small fraction of life ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... All life on Earth is related. ... A creationist could believe that an intelligent designer ... and he was not descended from celery. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: what if an evolutionist myth comes true?
    ... the universe has a common origin (counterpositions - 1. ... life is unique to Earth 3. ... Even for life on Earth, I expect that many scientists are agnostic as to ... whether all life has a common origin. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: what if an evolutionist myth comes true?
    ... I expect that the majority of scientists do not believe that all life in the universe has a common origin (counterpositions - 1. ... Even for life on Earth, I expect that many scientists are agnostic as to whether all life has a common origin. ...
    (talk.origins)