Printable View
Homo neanderthalensis:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn....tudyshowsn.jpg
https://media.buzzle.com/media/image...-the-skull.jpg
Homo erectus:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...L2wDZToT7R-S5y
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...3Ik6HoHoJLCB2Q
Homo rudolfensis:
https://monipol.de/wp-content/upload...-berlin-19.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...ZAl0dAv51bFHtP
Controversial.
I go with evolution whilst not prefect makes and there are gaps still makes the most sense.
I believe in evolution and natural selection. However, I also believe in God.
I consider Genesis to be mythology and I don't think it should be taken too seriously. But if people took the teaching of Christ more seriously, the world would be a better place.
I don't believe in the god or Jesus of the bible, I don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I do believe in some sort of intelligent design. The complexity of even just a single cell or strain of DNA is so amazing that I find it hard to believe it's all random and was created from nothing.
I think evolution makes perfect sense and there is plenty of evidence for it. God on the other hand is something for which there is no evidence, but scientifically you can never say never so I would class myself an extreme agnostic in that regard. I think the historical Jesus was likely a very interesting person and any man that walks into a bank and throws coffee on the floor is alright by me.
Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.
If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?
If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
There would be millions of these in between/ transitional fossils.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIf there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Evolution doesn't even hold up to the scientific method of being able to be observed, measured and repeated.
People use that but the fact that fossils of 200 million year old fossils of sponges exist show most things can remainQuote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIf there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
A man has to know his limits and this may be above my paygrade ;D. But I'm much more of a evolution kinda guy. Can someone give me the quick..real quick..definition of creationism and when it was God is said to have snapped his fingers, the big bang?
Semantics. You did this with the word "kinds" too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Think of how a detective solves a crime without observing it.
True, that we can find such things Walrus. However, most living things will leave no trace several million years down the line. Should we dig up the entire planet to attempt the impossible task of the perfect puzzle? You have to operate within reasonable parameters. Most actual will simply break down within a relatively short space of time. Thus you are lucky to have the records that we do. We see them weaken in our own lifetimes within our bodies. It only accelerates post death with nothing to feed them.
Damn phone always deletes my words.....missing link....bones....
A crucial aspect to this matter is that the actual meaning of the word theory in a scientific sense (based on observation and on the scientific method) doesn't have anything to do with its meaning in common parlance; the colloquial meaning of theory would be equivalent to the concept of a mere hypothesis or conjecture in science.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaThere would be millions of these in between/ transitional fossils.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIf there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Evolution doesn't even hold up to the scientific method of being able to be observed, measured and repeated.
So in science, a theory is formulated precisely because there is evidence to support it.
And it can be observed and measured too; a greater genetic difference is observed between species, the more apart they are .
And repeated; mutation/selective pressure on bacteria and viruses leading to different strains, etc.
So even if the fossil record disappeared in a puff of smoke, the genetic evidence would lead to the same conclusions (branching apart more and more the further apart two species are in evolution).
And all fossils are transitional. Even the bones in the graveyard are transitional.
That's just my basic understanding of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterSemantics. You did this with the word "kinds" too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Think of how a detective solves a crime without observing it.
This ^^
Beat me to it with a better explanation.
This is how we know Allah is the one true God.....the universe started with a gigantic explosion.
Waka waka
Does the iceman count?Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIf there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Isn't it fairly easy to see some physical evidence of how we've evolved???.
I think so. There are plenty of fossils to suggest Darwin was right and it is the best idea posited. If there was no evidence it would be a problem but all the evidence fits into the puzzle. It can never be complete due to erosion. Shouldn't be an issue unless you take the Bible as absolute truth. In which case you likely have a low IQ and should be ignored.
The ad hominem stuff is weak Gandalf, I therefore apologize to anyone offended by me calling evolution a joke, although I was attacking the substance of the argument itself, rather than persons associated with the argument. If that's your opinion, your are entitled to it. And I have already said I don't believe in the God or Jesus of the bible.
In reply to Fenster, there is a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.
The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to construct the past does have a lot in common with modern day CSI. In both cases, there is an attempt to use to use good science to reconstruct the past.
CSI shows try to give us the impression that CSI is all about the facts and that the facts speak for themselves. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science works. The facts can't speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past. Basically the gap between circumstantial fact and forensic interference is large, and filled with questionable assumptions.
Take the dingo ate my baby case, Lindy Chamberlian her conviction was based on scientific forensic evidence, interpreted by fallible human beings, which lead to the false reconstruction of the past. Despite these uncertainties and spectacular failures, forensic science and historical science can be useful in helping to investigate the past. Cases can be built primarily on forensic evidence that is sufficient to lead to convictions that match with eye witness accounts or later confessions.
However, CSI is a methodology, not a conclusion. The same forensic approach can be used by creationists, using a different starting point (i,e, different assumptions about the past) to reach a different conclusion from the same facts.
It's usually obvious when a crime has been committed. But CSI teams typically don't just assume that one happened. An investigation will close if suspicious circumstances turn out not to be so i.e there's been no crime. But what about when it comes to rocks and fossils, and even the structure and patterns of living organisms today? There, it's like always assuming that a dead body is always indicative of a crime, evolution and long ages are assumed in advance to be the only reasonable explanation available. CSI leaves open the possibility that a crime didn't cause the crime scene, but evolutionists always assume the rocks and fossils reserve an evolutionary story. The question for them is not so much whether evolution happened, but how.
This is getting a bit long, but timeline is an important part of establishing what happened in a crime. But establishing a timeline based on forensic evidence alone is tricky and fraught with many questionable assumptions. This is the case when CSI teams have decades worth of data showing that their clocks are generally reliable. Many forensic investigators have seen their clocks work, they have been verified by eyewitness reports. they have also seen when and how they fail.
Evolutionists have never seen their clocks work. Ho could they? We haven't been investigating anywhere near long enough to verify million year timelines!
Radiocarbon dating is flawed and carbon dating is only reliable and accurate to around 60,000 years.
I'll just leave a few quick things, I'd ask anyone to look into geology, it's huge jigsaw, but look at coal, granite, strata, basalt columns, mudfloods etc in regards to secondary plutonium halos and how quickly they can be created.
For conspiracy theorists, the elite use National Geographic and the history channel to mind control us and sway the masses. Now National Geographic was owned by 20th century Fox, a mass media corporation, but has now been purchased by Disney. The History channel was already owned by Disney.
Alpha that was not Ad Hominem as such and certainly not an attack on you as you do not appear to be religious. There are no doubt highly intelligent religious people and you treat everyone as an individual, but there are numerous studies that have looked at the correlation between intelligence and religion. Here is a piece that summarizes dozens of investigations. I find these kinds of topics interesting thus I bring up IQ every now and then. Anyone who believes in the Bible at face value has to be, inevitably, less of a critical thinker than someone who questions what it is they are reading.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...planations.pdf
Not sure what Alpha believes, he keeps copy and pasting creationist "science" but not even they believe in flat earths and what not, do they? They're all about god and the bible literally.
Yea but it's directed at a person rather than their position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Like I have said before, people are like sheep and easily manipulated by propaganda and by those in authority. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a low IQ.
Sure I copy and paste, some but not all, don't we all? I agree with what's being stated, just don't won't to type it out myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I think it would be safe to say that most flat earthers disagree with evolution. I could be wrong tho. I wouldn't be able to tell you what % believe in god and the bible tho. Most that I deal with tho don't. Preferring to focus on things we have experience with rather than speculate.
Intelligent design seems right to me. But not god or the bible.
Anything you want to ask, by all means go ahead, I'm more than happy to tell you what I believe, but I think it's already been stated.
You guys are all stupid and full of shit. Certain aspects are evolutionary but one single cell organism leading to the billions of animals and humans, reptiles, insects, birds, fish etc. etc. etc is absolutely lunatic. You should all be ashamed.
No, it was not a comment aimed at a person, Alpha. It was a general statement which can be backed up by considerable scientific research. Now maybe a religious person with a low IQ might be offended, but that is neither here nor there with me and I question anybody who can believe a book of folk stories over genuine research. Evolution debunks elements of the Bible completely.
I’m not even bring up the Bible I’m saying your single living cell becoming billions of species slapable. In the evolution theory, what brought about the single cell. Please tell me how something came from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
I believe in Jesus Christ, but not in some of the Old Testament.
Muslims respect Jesus, Jews however do not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTzmtzCKTNQ
Your're on the right track Walrus, also common sense tells us explosions destroy stuff, they don't create things. I'd advise anyone to seriously look into the fruit fly experiments, or the pigeon experiments where they have tried to force and observe evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusI’m not even bring up the Bible I’m saying your single living cell becoming billions of species slapable. In the evolution theory, what brought about the single cell. Please tell me how something came from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Gandalf questions you're folk stories over research, and possibly you're IQ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
No, I think he's tolerant of my religious beliefs. And he doesn't question my IQ, which has been tested and is in fact substantial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Freedom questions the Bible, Alpha. That indicates critical thinking. Like I say, not every religious person is going to be stupid and likewise not every atheist is going to be Einstein who was clever with his words but pretty much rejected the Biblical God too. Common sense means you have to. I respect moderate Christians in that they appear to display an evolved mindset. The IQ evidence is what it is. It cannot be refuted as easily as an all powerful and now apparently gender neutral God.
Sorry maybe I misunderstood you're quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
"I question anybody who can believe a book of folk stories over genuine research".
When I say folk stories, I mean folk stories, stories passed down generation after generation, and like with evolution such memes will end up being distorted and historically mutated. I don't think the Bible all comes from nothing, but it has its own agenda and mission to fulfill and does not require evidence to back up what it says and this is where science and reason forced Christianity to question itself. Many Christians today likely do question aspects of the Bible, you would have to be stupid to not question it at all. However in saying that there are Christian extremists, particularly in America who do take it all at face value and those people are inevitably going to be intellectually challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSorry maybe I misunderstood you're quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
"I question anybody who can believe a book of folk stories over genuine research".
I accept that my culture is a Judeo/Christian one and that this along with the freedom of expression has led to the finest of civilizations. That I do not believe in God nor an actual interpretation of the Bible does not mean I cannot see the positive things that have emerged from that tamed tradition. It is one reason why Islam needs to go through a serious process of analysis too, but unfortunately our governments are rejecting our tradition of freedom and silencing anyone who does question the 'religion of peace'. Jesus appears to have been a decent person and of course we can learn from decent people.
Because you mentioned agenda I thought this might interest you:Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfWhen I say folk stories, I mean folk stories, stories passed down generation after generation, and like with evolution such memes will end up being distorted and historically mutated. I don't think the Bible all comes from nothing, but it has its own agenda and mission to fulfill and does not require evidence to back up what it says and this is where science and reason forced Christianity to question itself. Many Christians today likely do question aspects of the Bible, you would have to be stupid to not question it at all. However in saying that there are Christian extremists, particularly in America who do take it all at face value and those people are inevitably going to be intellectually challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSorry maybe I misunderstood you're quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
"I question anybody who can believe a book of folk stories over genuine research".
I accept that my culture is a Judeo/Christian one and that this along with the freedom of expression has led to the finest of civilizations. That I do not believe in God nor an actual interpretation of the Bible does not mean I cannot see the positive things that have emerged from that tamed tradition. It is one reason why Islam needs to go through a serious process of analysis too, but unfortunately our governments are rejecting our tradition of freedom and silencing anyone who does question the 'religion of peace'. Jesus appears to have been a decent person and of course we can learn from decent people.
There were two essential factors that contributed to Evolution’s “fast start”, meteoric rise, and continuing supremacy:
1. Growing 19th Century Skepticism Concerning Biblical Literalism
2. The Powerful International Force of Marxist-“Progressive”-Liberal Politics
By the time that Darwin had set pen to paper, many among the European and American Intelligentsia were having their doubts about the literal accounts of the Book of Genesis. They weren’t necessarily Atheists. Indeed, Darwin himself was an Agnostic, not an Atheist.
But many were thirsty for an alternative explanation of Creation. These reasonable doubts had thus predisposed the Intellectual Class to accepting a different explanation for the mystery of life. The soil of many educated minds had already been loosened and fertilized before Darwin even published Origin of Species.
The 2nd (and most significant) element of Darwin’s instant success has to do with politics. Even more so than money, politics can be the most corruptive force created by man. As with any other historical myth, it was the power of politicized force that exalted and sustained Evolution. And make no mistake; the rise of Darwinian Evolution has always been steeped in the corruptive culture of politics; of the Leftish type.
Recall that Soviet Comrade Oparin (under Stalin’s supervision) gave us the “Primordial Soup”. Communist lover Urey gave us a rigged amino acid experiment. The pro-Communist ACLU brought us the circus of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Marxist Hollywood brought us one ridiculous Straw Man version of Inherit the Wind after another after another. Son of a Communist Gould brought us “Punctuated Equilibrium”. The pattern is unmistakable. The question is: why?
The ink in Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species was barely dry before the two man-gods of the logically flawed ideology of Communism, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, began promoting Darwin’s work. Engels had actually acquired one of the first 1200 copies of Darwin’s clap-trap. Follow this sequence of events.
November 24, 1859: Darwin publishes Origin of Species
November 27-30, 1859: Engels acquires of the very first copies and sends a letter to Marx telling him:
"Darwin, by the way, whom I'm just reading now, is absolutely splendid".
December 19, 1860: Marx writes a letter to Engels telling him that Darwin’s book provides the natural-history foundation for the Communist viewpoint:
“These last four weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book ….this is the book which contains the basis on natural history for our view.
January 16, 1861: Marx writes an excited letter to his Communist friend Ferdinand Lassalle, the founder of the International Socialist movement in Germany:
“Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.”
June 18, 1862: Marx had already re-read Origin of Species, and again writes to Engels: “I am amused at Darwin, into whom I looked again”
1862: Marx quotes Darwin again within his Theories of Surplus Value:
"In his splendid work, Darwin did not realize that by discovering the 'geometrical progression' in the animal and plant kingdom, he overthrew Malthus theory.”
German Communist leader Wilhelm Liebknecht later described just how excited the 19th Century Communist leaders all were about the new theory:
"When Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries.”
Though not directly connected to them, Darwin was heavily promoted by Marx & Engels.
Historian Richard Weikart revealed that Marx had started to attend "a series of lectures by Thomas Henry Huxley on evolution.” Huxley, and many in his family, were afflicted with severe, generational mental health problems. This may, or may not, account for Huxley’s odd obsession with passionately promoting a theory that had no evidence behind it, other than the minor variations in finch beaks. For his fanatical promotion of Evolution, the blustering biologist became known as “Darwin’s Bulldog”.
Why would a scientific truth need a “bulldog” to promote and defend it anyway? As the Philosopher St. Augustine once observed, “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.' After a century and a half of searching for millions of magical missing links, Darwinism still requires a whole pack of “bulldogs” to defend it.
In the 2nd Edition of Das Kapital, Marx included two explicit references to Darwin and evolution in which he related Darwin's theory to his own opinion about production and technology development. Marx referred to Origin of Species as "epoch-making work”, and went on to compare Darwin’s view of organs to his own bizarre view of tools and manufacturing.
In a book review of Das Kapital, Engels wrote that Marx was:
"…striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field."
June 16, 1873: Marx sends Darwin an autographed copy of Das Kapital, with the words:
Mr. Charles Darwin, On the part of his sincere admirer - Karl Marx.
October, 1873: Darwin writes back to Marx, thanking him for having sent his work:
"I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge.
Marx’s admiration for Darwin’s work had little to do with Science. The Communists believed that Darwin provided a perspective that suited the goals of Atheistic Communism.
Hey Fenster, this is copied and pasted as well.
Yes, Alpha, you're copy and pasting from a young earth creationist outfit, who ironically think flat-earthers and moon conspiracy advocates are nuts.
On that site give this article a read - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...se#just_theory
You'll especially enjoy these two - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...t-use#moonhoax and this one - https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth
Fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0204111403.htm
http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpre...science-again/
Go on then, what designed us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Not sure what you're point is. I have similar ideas to them in regards to evolution. I doesn't matter to me that they are not flat earthers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You know full well I can post a link for everyone that you post, stating the complete opposite. But post as many as you like, all it will do is prove the evolution isn't a fact and only a hypothesis for scientists to base their assumptions on. Science like Religion needs one miracle to prove everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterFascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0204111403.htm
http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpre...science-again/
It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterGo on then, what designed us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Bloody Marx has a lot to answer for. It always ends up being about those bloody Marxists and their agenda. To be fair to poor old Darwin, fascists tended to pick up on his ideas in rather crude ways too. Darwin was agnostic, but in the same way that Einstein or even Dawkins is. No scientist can say "Hand on heart I am 100% an atheist" as that would make you as much an absolutist as the double digit IQ types who argue that man walked with dinosaurs (check the polls, many do indeed believe just that).
In terms of probability those scientists did not believe in a God in any way comparable to the angry bloke or now gender neutral thing that would blow up cities or make odd demands on individual humans every now and then. They just accept that we do not have all the answers, but God is hardly the most practical solution. After all, who invented that very angry man.....sorry erm thing. Then who invented that? And then that? And then that? And on it goes forevermore.
We have this fine planet here and we do at least have some understanding of what it is and how it got here and why life is as it is. At the end of the day if God is unwilling to prove himself.....sorry herself......sorry itself....then that is on it. It is neither here nor there and neither does it matter. It is insanity that we label criticism of something that most likely doesn't even exist as hate crime nowadays too. Humanity has issues going down this path. The only reality we have at the moment is that there is almost no evidence for the existence of a God. Call its name at the top of your voice and nothing will happen. You will never see or hear anything unless your brain is broken or you have had too much brandy that evening or slyly slipped a tab of LSD. It does not matter too much at the end of the day.
And yes God is now gender neutral according to some bloke who is clearly not making it up as he goes along based on no evidence at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...-of-canterbury
For sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.
However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.
What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.
Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.
I literally said I don't know what created us. We could all be a Sims game for all I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterFor sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.
However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.
What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.
Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.
I don't believe in evolution and have given my reasons for this. I don't believe in God, or the bible. I'm not sure what sources you're referring to. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I have to be religious. But I do follow the same logic that everything seems so perfect to have occurred randomly.
Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say.