| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
evolution 9 (Free verse) by wilco up from the water
across the ancient sand
slow mutation at the genetic level
from mammal to snake and back again
straining to find a place in the universe
lacking the skills necessary for survival
synapses firing and gaining solid form
coursing in veins not meant for living
ghost stories not withstanding
it's written in the stones
you don't believe
Up the ladder:
Butterfly Belly, Orchid Face
Down the ladder:
A Fish is Always a Fish
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.714286
Posted: April 14, 2004 4:34 PM PDT; Last modified: April 24, 2004 6:32 PM PDTWeighted score: 5.729984 Overall Rank: 1851 Comments:
How is it you have a bunch of "old votes" and no old comments? Anyway, I'm not rabid, but do like this. I didn't think snakes came from mamals though. Also, I think all the species had or have skills necessary for survival because they survived, at least for a while - picky, picky. Also the last line throws me. Who didn't believe?
This was a poem that I edited into another poem and there were acouple of comments that I did'nt feel had any value to the new poem and thus were deleted. :0)
As far as your other questions: 1) I don't think snakes came from mammals either but this is an allusion to the fact that we really don't know for sure (although its an obscure line I admit) 2) Yep, all the species that had the skills for survival did survive. This line refers to one that did not. 3) I wrote this after having a conversation with an extremely devout Christian woman who completely refused to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that evolution happened, despite the historical (read: fossil) evidence.
I find no legitimate quarell between evolution and Christianity. Seems the proponents of both should stick to their own expertise.
I believe you are right.
What about Adam and Eve? Evolution suggests we evolved from apes. And what about the fact that evolution has occurred over millions of years, but the Bible says the world is only a few thousand years old?
Many Bible scholars accept the Bible as reflective of of evolution, seeing the eons as representative of truths. The Bible writers did not not have science.
Of course they did.
Compare:
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/ archives/oldearth.htm http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/c03carb
Great - nentwined's non-page-expanding program inserted a bunch of spaces in the URLs above. Watch out.
You don't need science if God is telling you what to write. And what do you mean by "seeing the eons as representative of truths"?
With all we know today, it seems obvious that the world is much older than the Bible writers thought it was. In justifying the Bible, many people look at the six days of creation as much longer times, still representative of God's plan expressed figuratively in Genesis. It boils down to whether or not you believe in literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe it contains a heap of truth, but don't think God told them exactly what to write.
Why on Earth would God want to be vague about it? There is no indication that Genesis should be interpreted loosely. If God actually meant six eons rather than six days then why the bow'ls didn' t He say so? Since it has become obvious that more and more of the Bible is complete cobblers, people are forced to adopt looser and looser interpretations of it. Do you think Jesu was a metaphor? Because that would explain his ability to turn Invisible and Walk through Walls.
I don't know why God is so vague. I will be clearer when I replace Him. For now, I think Jesu was a real person because so much evidence points to that conclusion, and I think it's okay to find a heap of truth in the Bible and at the same time interpret some of it loosely.
Do you think Jesu rose from the dead?
I want to get back to you on that, but now I must get to the doctor about my aching foot. Really, it's been nicer than before.
Iâm back now prepared with a little something from the waiting room.
Some aspects of the Resurrection, as reported in the four Gospels, make sense; some do not. I find Paul asking me to believe beyond a shadow of doubt, while I stare at reasonable doubts. Another vagueness of God? Maybe. Maybe belief doesnât count if itâs based on reason. But that puts me in the unhappy position of deciding which unreasonable fancies I see floating around out there to believe. The Resurrection is a mystery that I do not feel compelled to believe. But I believe many things that way â like that a daffodil has become as brilliant yellow steel. Jesu used to talk this way in His stories, though more eloquently and with more to say, but beating around the bush in this way. Some things just feel right, and tear me to pieces for unlogic, but by God, I still feel this way. Thank you for bringing this up; I feel a poem coming on now, âTale From My Buttocks,â perhaps, no, âChild From the Outhouse,â something about Godâs creations, because I donât separate religion from the rest of it. Add the theology of hypatia to all the others, for better or worse, til death do us part.
By evidence do you mean Mel Gibson's "The Passion" and Robert Powell in "Jesus of Nazareth".
I was thinking of history, archeology, the four Gospels, and science.
Did you know that the fossilized remains of Jesu were recently unearthed at a dig in Jerusalem? Archeologists said they could tell it was Jesu by the shape of its beard, and by the petrified halo that loitered about its head.
No, I had not heard that.
335 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What is this creature, and how did its description merit a ten from daveslady? Are you, by any chance, Dave?
I can give it a nine I guess, cuz well if its good enough for her...