Moderator: Community Team
neanderpaul14 wrote:Your saying evolution is far-fetched, yet you believe 2 people populated the planet in 6000 years.jay_a2j wrote: I said, "from Adam and Eve to the present was about 6,000 years"
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Yes, I just said so. We have proof that people were here on the Americas over 10,000 years ago. More evidence is mounting they were here before that ("Clovis first" versus other theories). People were absolutely in Europe and Africa well before that.jay_a2j wrote:neanderpaul14 wrote:Your saying evolution is far-fetched, yet you believe 2 people populated the planet in 6000 years.jay_a2j wrote: I said, "from Adam and Eve to the present was about 6,000 years"
Can you disprove it?
I am talking about Evolution of life on Earth, not the origin of the Earth. Yes, I believe scientists, but that science is far more tenuous and it is well outside my field. The subject here is Evolution.jay_a2j wrote: Lets see, we went from 4 billion to over 6 billion in less than 10 years... so yeah, it's very likely.
jay_a2j wrote:neanderpaul14 wrote:Your saying evolution is far-fetched, yet you believe 2 people populated the planet in 6000 years.jay_a2j wrote: I said, "from Adam and Eve to the present was about 6,000 years"
Can you disprove it?
Apparently, all that one has to do is pull a fossilized lemur out of the ground and tell you that it was named Adam, then you will believe.karel wrote: And yes they did find a 45 million old fossil,just watched a show on it last night,they found it in germany.
I guess it comes down to if you believe in god or not,most that belive in god do not belive in evoultion.
So i guess each to their own
For one i do not belive that we came from god,show me the proof and i will belive,and don't pull any bible quotes out, they prove nothing................
each their own i guess.
That is just one small additional piece of evidence (and yes, I do take issue with the media assertions that this is THE missing link ... its one of about 1000 more like) IF it even really and truly pans out (seems likely, but time will tell for sure). Further, as I said above to jay, even if you did prove that people and apes had completely separate lineages, (and to a point, they do... its just that they are our nearest relative on Earth today) it would still not disprove Evolution because there is so much evidence of other lines of descent for other species.captain.crazy wrote:
Apparently, all that one has to do is pull a fossilized lemur out of the ground and tell you that it was named Adam, then you will believe.
I am not sure how that little monkey from Germany is being called 'the missing link' when in fact is really just looks to be a lemur. Does it not bother you that they have made the claim that it is the missing link without actually conducting any tests on it? A little presumptuous, don't you think?
Okay, so #5 on my solution list - don't vote for people who would hire people like that. Player, you and I both know that it's a little unrealistic to keep banging the drum of evolution when people just won't believe it. So, just ignore those people.PLAYER57832 wrote:I used to agree. However, after reading through what is really being taught in Creationist schools, home-schooling and seeing what happens when these kids grow up and get jobs in the government (25% of the Bush administration, for example ... the same administration that poo-pooed Global climate change, etc.... ) I have to say that there are reasons we need set curricula that are to be learned by ALL kids.thegreekdog wrote:Ironically, the same people who say that the "US-centric" individuals do not listen to others are the same people who will not listen to the "US-centric" individuals because the former find the latter to be ridiculous. At least some people choose to debate instead of automatically assuming "stupid American."
Here are my two cents:
(1) Creationism should not be taught in public school. You want to teach your kid that God created the Earth, et. al., teach the kid at home.
(2) Evolution should be taught in public school.
(3) If someone doesn't want their kid taught evolution in public school, take the kid out of class and teach the kid whatever you want at home (i.e. refer to #1).
(4) If you teach your kid that evolution is wrong, he ain't gonna be a scientist.
Pretty easy solutions there. But, hey, let's ridicule everyone some more.
Knowing that 1 + 1 =2 is not open to religious interpretation. Neither is knowing that a tree is a tree and not a fish... and, yes, the basic idea of Evolution, including many of the concepts within it are simply not open to interpretation.
Debate does not bother me. I retain the hope that I might actually learn something knewthegreekdog wrote: Okay, so #5 on my solution list - don't vote for people who would hire people like that. Player, you and I both know that it's a little unrealistic to keep banging the drum of evolution when people just won't believe it. So, just ignore those people.
What?Juan_Bottom wrote:I think that we all agree that the theory of Evolution is correct and true.
Juan_Bottom wrote:I think that we all agree that the theory of Evolution is correct and true.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Although Darwin did speak of "survival of the fittest", a more accurate assessment would really be "survival of the lucky". I may be the "biggest, baddest" young buck around, but if I get hit by a semi (or trapped behind a landslide, hit by a bullet, hit by a random tree branch in a windstorm ...etc.) before I get to pass on my genes.. it does not matter.b.k. barunt wrote:What?Juan_Bottom wrote:I think that we all agree that the theory of Evolution is correct and true.
Answer me this - Darwin's theory is based on "survival of the fittest". In nature, the weak are quickly dispatched, with mothers often killing their own young if they exhibit signs of such weakness. How did man suddenly (or gradually) "evolve" altruistic traits that not only allow the weak to live, but cater to their needs at the expense of the strong? When did our souls suddenly come into being? The Bible alleges that only man has a soul - we see this to be true in the natural world, as no animal exhibits signs of having one. How do you explain the evolution of our souls?
In each case, the poll would be wrong. However, I dispute your assertion that the majority of people would not say Jesus is God. I believe Christianity is the predominant religion on Earth right now.jay_a2j wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:I think that we all agree that the theory of Evolution is correct and true.
Um, no WE don't. And if we go by "the majority", taking a poll of all in this thread asking the question, "Is Jesus the Son of God?", the majority would no doubt say, "no". Regardless if He is or not.
Juan_Bottom wrote: So what I want to know is... what is the next step in human evolution?
PLAYER57832 wrote:In each case, the poll would be wrong. However, I dispute your assertion that the majority of people would not say Jesus is God. I believe Christianity is the predominant religion on Earth right now.jay_a2j wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:I think that we all agree that the theory of Evolution is correct and true.
Um, no WE don't. And if we go by "the majority", taking a poll of all in this thread asking the question, "Is Jesus the Son of God?", the majority would no doubt say, "no". Regardless if He is or not.
The bottom line... if you change your opinion based on a poll, then you are either a politician tasked with representing those people or you are just not thinking. However, jay, for all your assertions that we are wrong and you are correct, where is your evidence? Or any refutation of the evidence to which I pointed you?
No, a thousand people, a million people, a billion people thinking xyz is true is definitely not reason to change one's personal opinion. HOWEVER, if finding out that millions of people disagree ought to be reason enough to at least question and see if they might be right and you wrong.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Oh come on Jay. It's been well documented by Victorian explorers that they came across advanced primates in rainforests that had made clearings in the forest and had erected crude tables from deadwood, set up a small market and were actively trading in naturally occurring forest objects such as tent pegs, cigarette lighters and x & y chromosomes.jay_a2j wrote:Evolution does not make sense. You can't buy chromosomes deep in the rain forests.
I'm no scientist. The evolutionary theory was taught to me throughout my school years and it makes more sense to me than any creationist set of talking points. Natural selection acts upon species and they evolve as a result. While I'm no expert, I do believe that a majority of people who have dedicated themselves to studying species trust this to be a fact. It's not bullet proof and there have been people who have stretched it to fit how they want obviously, but overall it's a sound theory. That's the proof I'm talking about, and it came from my textbooks in high school.PLAYER57832 wrote:(A. I believe the Bible, too AND B. Then why did you claim you had all this PROOF of your belief?)
Pedronicus wrote:Oh come on Jay. It's been well documented by Victorian explorers that they came across advanced primates in rainforests that had made clearings in the forest and had erected crude tables from deadwood, set up a small market and were actively trading in naturally occurring forest objects such as tent pegs, cigarette lighters and x & y chromosomes.jay_a2j wrote:Evolution does not make sense. You can't buy chromosomes deep in the rain forests.
In his memoirs Henry Stanley has written that when he had come across Dr. Livingstone, David Livingstone had been buying huge amounts of plutonium-239 from some highland gorillas that had perfected open cast mining with crude hand tools, and was looking for a method to export to some North Koreans, without the Congolese authorities discovering and slapping on an export tax that neither he nor the Gorillas could afford.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
I'm not sure what science you're reading, but I'd love to see what your sources are for those claims.jay_a2j wrote: Evolution does not make sense. You can't buy chromosomes deep in the rain forests. "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed". (except in the case of God doing it) "Life cannot come from non-life".... Science itself disputes evolution! I have laid out the evidence against evolution throughout the "Logic dictates" thread. I can't be held accountable if you didn't read it.
The short answer is that Genesis was never meant to convey an exact timeline in the way that some Conservative Christians assert. It was assumed the Earth was young for a long time, by most Europeans, because people just could not concieve of anything else. People thought the sun revolved around the earth, too. However, while the history books like to point to a few individuals who "discovered" and put forth the new theories, the truth is there were long individuals who thought this might be the case. They just did not have scientifically acceptable proof.zebraman wrote:I'm no scientist. The evolutionary theory was taught to me throughout my school years and it makes more sense to me than any creationist set of talking points. Natural selection acts upon species and they evolve as a result. While I'm no expert, I do believe that a majority of people who have dedicated themselves to studying species trust this to be a fact. It's not bullet proof and there have been people who have stretched it to fit how they want obviously, but overall it's a sound theory. That's the proof I'm talking about, and it came from my textbooks in high school.PLAYER57832 wrote:(A. I believe the Bible, too AND B. Then why did you claim you had all this PROOF of your belief?)
But even more interesting is how you reconcile believing in the Bible and evolution at the same time. The two are incompatible. If you could be very specific in how you can believe in both I will honestly listen to you. I was always taught that they were directly opposed to each other.
In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.zebraman wrote:I'm no scientist. The evolutionary theory was taught to me throughout my school years and it makes more sense to me than any creationist set of talking points. Natural selection acts upon species and they evolve as a result. While I'm no expert, I do believe that a majority of people who have dedicated themselves to studying species trust this to be a fact. It's not bullet proof and there have been people who have stretched it to fit how they want obviously, but overall it's a sound theory. That's the proof I'm talking about, and it came from my textbooks in high school.PLAYER57832 wrote:(A. I believe the Bible, too AND B. Then why did you claim you had all this PROOF of your belief?)
But even more interesting is how you reconcile believing in the Bible and evolution at the same time. The two are incompatible. If you could be very specific in how you can believe in both I will honestly listen to you. I was always taught that they were directly opposed to each other.
Well, it would be nice if you could at least give some page numbers. It is your argument, Klobber has made that thread spin into oblivionjay_a2j wrote: I have laid out the evidence against evolution throughout the "Logic dictates" thread. I can't be held accountable if you didn't read it.
jay_a2j wrote:I do. And any Sociologist will too.Balsiefen wrote: I don't think its unreasonable to think that, as intelligence and experience increased, language could have developed over the 400,000 years since our species evolved and the 6 million years before that since our branch diverged from that of modern apes.
You are missing a few steps here, jay. Speech IS a learned behavior, but you have to have the physical ability to make the sounds AND the enhanced brain capable of using it. Animals actually do communicate in various ways, can be said to have types of rudimentary speech and do mimic certain aspects of human speech.jay_a2j wrote: Speech is a learned behavior. Therefore in order for a person to speak German, they must be taught to speak it. Put a newborn in a room, isolated from any human contact, just giving it necessities (food, water etc.) and that person will grow up and not be able to speak. Why is this you say? Because speech is a LEARNED behavior. So, if we have 20 million apes walking around striving to take the plunge into a higher class of life they would need someone who can speak to teach them how to speak. This is evidenced by the fact that over all these years of "evolution" there is no other animal on Earth who has "evolved" speech.
I agree, but the Bible does not specify how God created mankind, just that he did.jay_a2j wrote: I don't find it unreasonable to believe God gave us the ability to speak when He created man.
I clicked on the link and couldn't help noticing that Neanderthal man isn't following homo sapien because homo sapien seems to have the worst case of piles ever, and he should in fact be walking with a less advanced hunch than Neanderthal man to lessen the pain of those bum grapes.
