Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wpeters on November 14, 2013, 10:25:08 AM
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
My question is how primitive was early man?
I have some thoughts and Ideas but would like to see a debate on what you think and why...
-
Lets not go there. You KNOW this is a bad idea, so just don't do it.
-
I have socks older than that.
INcredible.
-
ever watch the knuckle-draggers work together in a horde??? Much the same 3000 years ago.
Next topic please.
-
Nooooooooooooooo!
-
I'm a Diest and believe the Angels/UFO's at the behest of God seeded this miracle planet with Human Hosts capable of supporting a soul that needs to grow to achieve a higher plane of existence. You have several lives to work on your soul and temptation is a test to see if you are evolved enough to move on. Many fail and repeat the trials of life many times self destructing never reaching the level they should. Many let evil and hate shroud what is truly important.
The universal gift from God is love.
I am not yet worthy. But won't stop trying. :pray
-
I am a monkey :banana:
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about three thousand years old...
There is written record of man's existence spanning back about 5,000 years. Even further if you count cave art. How do you reconcile that against 3,000 years?
-
There is written record of man's existence spanning back about 5,000 years. Even further if you count cave art. How do you reconcile that against 3,000 years?
Sorry that was a typo on my part. You are correct
-
There is written record of man's existence spanning back about 5,000 years. Even further if you count cave art. How do you reconcile that against 3,000 years?
Don't ask him questions that require any form of rational thinking.
-
I'm an Odinist. I believe that first there was nothing. Then there was a world of fire and a world of ice. Then these two worlds collided and created everything. Then there was a cow... No wait, that would be retarded.
-
Interesting related information. There are over 3,000 languages spoken on earth today. Yet of those languages less than 100 have written word. Much of man's evolution/improvement comes through the sharing of ideas that is transported through written word. Cultures that do not have written word tend to be less empathetic. Thus speaketh Harvard anthropologist Rivkin. Really interesting discussion he raises.
The more knowledge, the better man, though sadly we have seen some pretty boneheaded ideas repeated over and over again over the past few hundred years.
Boo
-
Scholz, you almost had me. Then you gave up on the cow. What is wrong with the cow? Sheesh!
boo
-
Blasphemy! How dare you? The great mother space cow, progenitor of all, bastion of peace and kindness, instructor of good, she that we worship and obey, shall not be treated so by you, you viperous infidel. We shall avenge and burn your sons and daughters alive, choke on sulphorous fumes of their incandescence you developmentally disabled heathen.
-
Man was created to ultimately INvent and build the P-51. This is the true meaning of life.
-
Man was created to ultimately INvent and build the P-51. This is the true meaning of life.
Nay...
...God created the P-51...for men to fly...
...men created the Fw190...for Gods to fly.
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
You're aware that man had already organized full farming communities 4-6 thousand years prior, and had domesticated pigs & cattle up to 3K yrs prior to this, right?
-
Proof that evolution and survival of the fittest is a bunch of baloney.
(http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz115/William_Duenskie/qs1di.gif) (http://s819.photobucket.com/user/William_Duenskie/media/qs1di.gif.html)
-
If all could bow their head in reverence....Stampf is quoting the prophets from scripture!!
Boo
:pray
-
If all could bow their head in reverence....Stampf is quoting the prophets from scripture!!
Boo
:pray
Ramen. :pray
-
Nay...
...God created the P-51...for men to fly...
...men created the Fw190...for Gods to fly.
May be so, but those Gods lost two World War's in a row.
-
But they will return for more!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_IndUbcxc
-
May be so, but those Gods lost two World War's in a row.
2 words.
'Hollow Earth' :noid
...are we really just talking about folklore here?...I think not...
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
never happened...it's a myth created by people with primitive minds trying to figure out a non-existent riddle from a book in which the contents are of mixed origins assembled and translated from translations of incomplete scripts.
-
Nay...
...God created the P-51...for men to fly...
...men created the Fw190...for Gods to fly.
Then man created the B-17, capable of destroying you and your hangers with ease. :D
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/U-S-Air-Force/B_17G_formation.sized.jpg)
-
I am a vogon and I believe the world was created by a space dog using the planet as a chew toy, where life started from all the bacteria festering around in its mouth
-
I am a vogon and I believe the world was created by a space dog using the planet as a chew toy, where life started from all the bacteria festering around in its mouth
As much evidence supports your story as does that of the OP. :aok
-
I'm an Odinist.
Yay for Odin! :aok
I also am very pleased that English day names are from Norse mythology: Tyr's Day, Odin's Day, Thor's Day, and Freya's Day!
(By the way, have you ever read the book "American Gods," by Gaiman?)
-
I am a vogon
If I start to see poetry, I'm running.
-
If I start to see poetry, I'm running.
:rofl
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz184/MayonakaNoRyuu/The%20Hitchhikers%20Guide%20To%20The%20Galaxy/space.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/MayonakaNoRyuu/media/The%20Hitchhikers%20Guide%20To%20The%20Galaxy/space.gif.html)
-
I'm a Diest and believe the Angels/UFO's at the behest of God seeded this miracle planet with Human Hosts capable of supporting a soul that needs to grow to achieve a higher plane of existence. You have several lives to work on your soul and temptation is a test to see if you are evolved enough to move on. Many fail and repeat the trials of life many times self destructing never reaching the level they should. Many let evil and hate shroud what is truly important.
The universal gift from God is love.
I am not yet worthy. But won't stop trying. :pray
Hey get off that frequency....Barbara Marciniak called, she wants her Pleiadians back... ;) :bolt: :neener: :cheers:
(albeit, technically I'm referring to transcendentalism)
I am a monkey :banana:
Just ate a bannana and loved it! :aok
-
There is written record of man's existence spanning back about 5,000 years. Even further if you count cave art. How do you reconcile that against 3,000 years?
We have Egyptian tax records from prior to 4,000 BC.
-
We have Egyptian tax records from prior to 4,000 BC.
T-rex looked cute on a leash!
-
We have Egyptian tax records from prior to 4,000 BC.
"Yes, Murhof, you owe 2 bundles of dates and figs. And your wive's services for my soldiers"
-
No way this is gonna stay open.
I thought Religion is a nono. I'm IN :banana:
:cheers: Oz
-
"Yes, Murhof, you owe 2 bundles of dates and figs. And your wive's services for my soldiers"
More or less, yes. Writing appears to have been created initially for the purpose of recording who had paid up.
-
No way this is gonna stay open.
I thought Religion is a nono.
If the OP can talk about his myth, we can make up our own to play along ;)
Odin: Because do *you* see any frost giants around? :banana:
-
Nay...
...God created the P-51...for men to fly...
...men created the Fw190...for Gods to fly.
^^^THIS^^^
-
We have Egyptian tax records from prior to 4,000 BC.
I always wonder what treasure trove of information and history was lost when the library of Alexandria burned.
There is evidence of proto-writing even earlier than 4,000 BC. Evidence of stone age tools even earlier than that. Then of course their is carbon dating and fossils that show millions and billions of years of earths existence. That doesn't even include geologic science. I don't think this is a serious post, but it was fun reading up on some new stuff because of it.
-
^^^THIS^^^
The 190 is nothing more than a stalling airplane that is food for my 17 turrets. :D
-
My history professor said that we would have already colonized other planets by now if the Library of Alexandria had not been destroyed.
We would already have genetically modified humans if Darwin hadn't skipped over the mathematics of genetics in Gregory Mendel's book. According to a former biology professor of mine.
-
Yay for Odin! :aok
I also am very pleased that English day names are from Norse mythology: Tyr's Day, Odin's Day, Thor's Day, and Freya's Day!
There's a reason for that.
Because it's not Norse mythology. The Norse were just one regional population that followed the same mythology as the entirety of the Germanic peoples, which included the pagan Franks, Vandals, Lombards, Norse, Jutes, Goths, Frisians, Angles and Saxons, among many many many many many many many others. The English names come from the Anglo-Saxon forms: Tíw, Wóden, Þunor and Fríge, rather than the Norse. Also Fríge is equivalent to Frigga/Frigg, NOT Freyja (which would be Frea in the Old English form, though reconciling Freyja and Frigg in Germanic mythology PERIOD is one big convoluted and confusing mess because they exist both simultaneously and variously in place of one another depending on which subset of the mythology you're looking at, and even within the SAME subset).
-
There's a reason for that.
Because it's not Norse mythology. The Norse were just one regional population that followed the same mythology as . . .
Well, yes, but the originals were Norse. The number of days and naming them after gods came from the Greeks (Sun, Moon, Ares, Hermes, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Cronos), which the Romans then adopted, but switched to their gods' names (Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jove, Venus, Saturn), which was adopted by the English, but switched to their Old English names of gods (except for Saturn, which we keep as Saturday), which were from the Germanic tribes, but they got them from the Norse tribes.
-
Nay...
...God created the P-51...for men to fly...
...men created the Fw190...for Gods to fly.
Apparently Gods took one in the shorts in 1945 then :devil
-
I believe none of us were there at the time.
Soooooooooooooooo.
What I do believe is that for sure, none of us know.
-
I'm definitely NOT an "early man". I'm more of a "just in time" man.
-
I'm definitely NOT an "early man". I'm more of a "just in time" man.
Thats not what she said ;) :neener:
-
Then there was a cow... No wait, that would be retarded.
(http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/southpark/vertical_video/season_17/1706/south-park-1706-ginger-cow-YUMMYFARTS-clip01.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Well, yes, but the originals were Norse. The number of days and naming them after gods came from the Greeks (Sun, Moon, Ares, Hermes, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Cronos), which the Romans then adopted, but switched to their gods' names (Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jove, Venus, Saturn), which was adopted by the English, but switched to their Old English names of gods (except for Saturn, which we keep as Saturday), which were from the Germanic tribes, but they got them from the Norse tribes.
We need a facepalm smiley.
The Norse ARE a Germanic tribe. Odin's name itself originated from Proto-Germanic Wodanaz. Also keep in mind that the Nordic Bronze Age which preceded the Iron Age spread of the Germanic cultures is strictly nominal. The Nordic Bronze Age also encompassed the Jutland Penninsula (where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes originated) and other parts of Northern Germany.
-
We need a facepalm smiley.
The Norse ARE a Germanic tribe
I'm just responding to
Because it's not Norse mythology
I know that Germanic tribes had the same or at least similar gods, but my understanding (which could be incorrect) is that those gods (Thor, etc.) came from specifically the Norse first and then were adapted by other Germanic tribes, perhaps as a result of Norse tribes colonizing portions in Germany.
-
My question is how primitive was early man?
It's not a question that makes very much sense.
Incrementally less primitive than an increment of time before. Incrementally more primitive than an increment of time after.
How naive were you in early adolescence?
-
I know that Germanic tribes had the same or at least similar gods, but my understanding (which could be incorrect) is that those gods (Thor, etc.) came from specifically the Norse first and then were adapted by other Germanic tribes, perhaps as a result of Norse tribes colonizing portions in Germany.
The Norse didn't even exist as a distinct tribal group when the first appearance of these gods is recorded, so no, they weren't "adapted" by other Germanic tribes from the Norse. They already existed before the tribes began migrating and evolving into distinct societies. If anything, the West Germanic group appears to have been the earliest to appear as distinct from the earlier Proto-Germanic collective group, with the dialectical foundations in place as early as the 1st Century BCE. The North Germanic group (to which the Norse belong) didn't begin to identifiably split off until around the 3rd Century CE.
Part of the problem is that more is known about the Norse version of the mythology because it survived as an active tradition long enough to actually get written down (Poetic and Prose Edda), while most of the other Germanic tribes were converted to Christianity before the middle of the Migration Period, leaving mostly grave goods and other archaeological finds, but no written sources. That's the real reason why the Norse are so heavily emphasized over the other Germanic tribes.
-
The Norse didn't even exist as a distinct tribal group when the first appearance of these gods is recorded, so no, they weren't "adapted" by other Germanic tribes from the Norse. They already existed before the tribes began migrating and evolving into distinct societies. If anything, the West Germanic group appears to have been the earliest to appear as distinct from the earlier Proto-Germanic collective group, with the dialectical foundations in place as early as the 1st Century BCE. The North Germanic group (to which the Norse belong) didn't begin to identifiably split off until around the 3rd Century CE.
Part of the problem is that more is known about the Norse version of the mythology because it survived as an active tradition long enough to actually get written down (Poetic and Prose Edda), while most of the other Germanic tribes were converted to Christianity before the middle of the Migration Period, leaving mostly grave goods and other archaeological finds, but no written sources. That's the real reason why the Norse are so heavily emphasized over the other Germanic tribes.
Thanks for the information on origin of Germanic gods.
For the origin of Norse people, why do you say they didn't exist as a distinct tribal group back then? There have been people in Scandinavia since the stone age, and people were always organized into tribes. European tribes (Bergundians, Lombards, etc.) are thought to have Scandinavian origin starting from 1700 BC.
-
I'm an Odinist. I believe that first there was nothing. Then there was a world of fire and a world of ice. Then these two worlds collided and created everything. Then there was a cow... No wait, that would be retarded.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
For the origin of Norse people, why do you say they didn't exist as a distinct tribal group back then? There have been people in Scandinavia since the stone age, and people were always organized into tribes. European tribes (Bergundians, Lombards, etc.) are thought to have Scandinavian origin starting from 1700 BC.
Because there wasn't a distinct group called "the Norse" when everyone was Proto-Germanic. The Old Norse language itself didn't evolve until around the 8th Century CE. From roughly the 3rd to 7th centuries you had Proto-Norse, which developed out of Proto-Germanic somewhere after that split into separate West, North and East Germanic language families.
So yes, you certainly had people living in Scandinavia, but what made them the Norse as opposed to the Lombards or Burgundians doesn't develop until after the language split.
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
My question is how primitive was early man?
I have some thoughts and Ideas but would like to see a debate on what you think and why...
I was there and Eve was flat chested. :O
-
(By the way, have you ever read the book "American Gods," by Gaiman?)
No I haven't. Is it a good read?
-
My question is how primitive was early man?
Primitive enough to invent the wheel and religion.
Only one of them performs any useful function.
-
(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa409/Christopher_Morris/jesusonadino_zps5a8b7484.jpg)
-
Nay...
...God created the P-51...for men to fly...
...men created the Fw190...for Gods to fly.
And the Bf-109 was created in the fires of hell for things that your parents used to tell you scary stories about to fly.. :devil
-
(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa409/Christopher_Morris/jesusonadino_zps5a8b7484.jpg)
Lol, it looks like the dino is talking to the rider. "...and then this group of beggars who escaped the Pharaoh came to live here, but the towel heads took offense; that's when the fighting started"
-
It's from the Sermon on the Mount. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth....but first they gotta get past these mfing dinosaurs!"
-
(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa409/Christopher_Morris/jesusonadino_zps5a8b7484.jpg)
ill see your picture and raise you......this!
(http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k287/bagrat/RobotDinosaurs.jpg) (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/bagrat/media/RobotDinosaurs.jpg.html)
but don't go getting all excited because this occured on neptune long after we killed off the dino's through interpretive dance on earth.
-
What killed them off was a mass pre-screening for Jurassic Waterworld,
-
Here is another stupid question but fun to debate over;
Do you think man found fire by accident or knew how to make fire from creation. Kinda like the question which came first the chicken or the egg :neener:
-
What killed them off was a mass pre-screening for Jurassic Waterworld,
dammit meatwad! if your not going to take this seriously your going to time out.
(http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo194/TheCuteWoofer/Av%20and%20Sig/the_cubing_sig.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/TheCuteWoofer/media/Av%20and%20Sig/the_cubing_sig.jpg.html)
now tell me i've been a bad boy.
-
Here is another stupid question but fun to debate over;
Do you think man found fire by accident or knew how to make fire from creation. Kinda like the question which came first the chicken or the egg :neener:
purely accidental. the aliens that were monitoring life on the planet accidentally ignited a wooly mammoth while a tribe of cave people were watching. the cave people got curious and the rest is history. :D
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
My question is how primitive was early man?
I have some thoughts and Ideas but would like to see a debate on what you think and why...
in other words you dont believe in what you are saying. I guess that's why you call it faith.
semp
-
in other words you dont believe in what you are saying. I guess that's why you call it faith.
semp
No I am wondering how tech-less they were
-
No I am wondering how tech-less they were
Entirely. The earliest examples of our family tree hadn't even figured out how to use a rock to get at bone marrow.
But if you're talking about homo sapien, then we had spears and fire and axes.
-
No I am wondering how tech-less they were
well instead of posting in a bb why dont you ask your spiritual guide or whatever you call it. since we dont really know which book you actually follow you may get the wrong answer.
semp
-
<S> Guncrasher
I love getting a good debate going
-
No I am wondering how tech-less they were
Archaeological records indicate
Stone tools ~250,000 years ago
First cave paintings ~100,000 years ago
Migration from Africa ~100,000 years ago
Consistent cave-painting culture ~40,000 years ago
Clothes ~30,000 years ago
Clay firing kilns ~26,000 years ago
Agricultural Revolution ~12,000 years ago
The agricultural revolution is neat because it lead to the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection, so it's when we really started to become a force that competed with nature in a way.
-
(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa409/Christopher_Morris/jesusonadino_zps5a8b7484.jpg)
SINNNER!!!!!!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
<S> Guncrasher
I love getting a good debate going
This isn't a debate. This is categorically and emphatically disproven beliefs propagated by fundamentalist religious charlatans against what the rest of us call reality. Although they do say that ignorance is bliss...
-
This isn't a debate. This is categorically and emphatically disproven beliefs propagated by fundamentalist religious charlatans against what the rest of us call reality. Although they do say that ignorance is bliss...
aside from the 6,000 year old earth theory, nothing else has been categorically or emphatically disproven.
-
The only problem I have with the belief of creationism that the earth is only 6,000 years old is that (prove me if I'm wrong):
you haven't studied
geology,
climatology
paleontology
archaeology
biology
chemistry
Botany
Astronomy
anthropology
and many more Ideologies and conducted studies concerning life, earth characteristics, and/or atmospheric characteristics to be able to make a legit argument that the earth is only 6,000 Years Old
and Taking classes doesn't count.
The only reason why you believe that (sorry no disrespect) is because some priest who didn't study this either forced you to believe that people who actually study these things for a living are wrong.
The 6,000 year old earth is an irrational, illogical argument, with no way of proving that your theory is right, compared to the substantial amount of scientific evidence against it.
-
<S> Guncrasher
I love getting a good debate going
well see there's no debate when you follow a book as you indicated on your op. you cannot call yourself a believer then question those beliefs by asking others if they're correct or not.
semp
-
I was there and Eve was flat chested. :O
that is because you are a bear. when have bears not been flat chested.
semp
-
aside from the 6,000 year old earth theory, nothing else has been categorically or emphatically disproven.
That's what we are talking about...
-
Well, one thing is clear.... there is no shortage of stupid people on planet Earth.
-
Its not my fault its genetic :old:
-
Its not my fault its genetic :old:
Quit reproducing!!!
(http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Idiocracy-600x345.jpg)
-
Quit reproducing!!!
(http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Idiocracy-600x345.jpg)
I have 7 wives and 23 children :old:
-
I have 7 wives and 23 children :old:
and you feed them a stable diet of Brawndo!
-
Well, one thing is clear.... there is no shortage of stupid people on planet Earth.
hey, i wouldn't talk if i were you...the last home picture of you didn't look too promising...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bRnEt20VD6s/T-2wOtPXgDI/AAAAAAAACXM/5nVb--ArphA/s1600/super-retard.jpg)
-
hey, i wouldn't talk if i were you...the last home picture of you didn't look too promising...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bRnEt20VD6s/T-2wOtPXgDI/AAAAAAAACXM/5nVb--ArphA/s1600/super-retard.jpg)
:rofl
Thats one of my better pictures btw...
-
aside from the 6,000 year old earth theory, nothing else has been categorically or emphatically disproven.
Simultaneous creation of all life.
-
:rofl
Thats one of my better pictures btw...
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol
here i am with a couple of cousins...i'm the one on the right
(http://cdn.funcheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/caveman001.jpg)
Simultaneous creation of all life.
according to the book...it wasn't simultaneous. :D
-
I wounder where Skuzzy is... :headscratch: Usually threads like these are shot down faster than me flying a fighter :rolleyes:
-
No I haven't. Is it a good read?
I liked "American Gods" a lot. It's a mythology-based fantasy in a modern setting and won the Hugo and Nebula awards (although there are lots of Hugo and Nebula winners that I think are not very good, so I don't consider it a perfect seal of approval). HBO is working on a series based on it, but that is far from a sure thing and, even if done, would not happen for some years likely.
-
Well, one thing is clear.... there is no shortage of stupid people on planet Earth.
Got that right. Look the potus.
-
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol
here i am with a couple of cousins...i'm the one on the right
(http://cdn.funcheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/caveman001.jpg)
according to the book...it wasn't simultaneous. :D
You are one of the BeeGees? Wow!
-
You are one of the BeeGees? Wow!
go to bed old man... :lol
-
aside from the 6,000 year old earth theory, nothing else has been categorically or emphatically disproven.
Don't you mean "empirically disproved" ?
-
Because there wasn't a distinct group called "the Norse" when everyone was Proto-Germanic.
I was using "Norse" in the sense of those tribes living in Scandinavia (i.e., a location-based distinction of where the tribes lived). You are using "Norse" to mean tribes during a particular time period in Scandinavia. Your definition might be the more-correct one. It is certainly more specific.
-
I liked "American Gods" a lot. It's a mythology-based fantasy in a modern setting and won the Hugo and Nebula awards (although there are lots of Hugo and Nebula winners that I think are not very good, so I don't consider it a perfect seal of approval). HBO is working on a series based on it, but that is far from a sure thing and, even if done, would not happen for some years likely.
Actually, that sounds pretty awesome. Thanks for the heads up, I'll have to look into it!
-
I wounder where Skuzzy is... :headscratch: Usually threads like these are shot down faster than me flying a fighter :rolleyes:
I think he's been slackin a little lately :noid
In other news...
I think the front page video looks very nice, can't wait for updates on it :aok
(Can we all change the subject or completely abandon this thread? So we don't have anymore purse fights or chest thumps or ankle humping anywhere? Please?)
:neener:
-
From the very first post, this thread has been a parody of a religious discussion. Nothing more.
-
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/auta_zps723ff2fc.jpg)
"OK who is the dummy that let the awtta go out again"?
-
Speaking of "early man", Jean-Jacques Annaud's "La guerre du feu" (English title: "Quest for fire") is a very good film about the subject. Also it's Ron Perlman's debut film. Plus, Rae Dawn Chong is nude the whole film...
-
The only problem I have with the belief of creationism that the earth is only 6,000 years old is that (prove me if I'm wrong):
you haven't studied
geology,
climatology
paleontology
archaeology
biology
chemistry
Botany
Astronomy
anthropology
and many more Ideologies and conducted studies concerning life, earth characteristics, and/or atmospheric characteristics to be able to make a legit argument that the earth is only 6,000 Years Old
and Taking classes doesn't count.
The only reason why you believe that (sorry no disrespect) is because some priest who didn't study this either forced you to believe that people who actually study these things for a living are wrong.
The 6,000 year old earth is an irrational, illogical argument, with no way of proving that your theory is right, compared to the substantial amount of scientific evidence against it.
. Man made the formula that tells the computer what the carbon 14 test date stuff. It is harder to wrap your head around the thought of earth being here for millions of years. It is easier to believe the 6,000 year theory. 6,000 is more consistence with proof of civilization.
-
. Man made the formula that tells the computer what the carbon 14 test date stuff. It is harder to wrap your head around the thought of earth being here for millions of years. It is easier to believe the 6,000 year theory. 6,000 is more consistence with proof of civilization.
This is what's called a Personal Incredulity Logical Fallacy. Just because something's harder to believe (...you're right...a magic sky wizard doing it all in a week with no materials make much more sense) has no bearing on the validity of the argument.
-
It's what's called "trolling"... ;)
-
Don't you mean "empirically disproved" ?
no...whale protein must be affecting your eyesight...go back and read what i was replying to.
-
It is harder to wrap your head around the thought of earth being here for millions of years. It is easier to believe the 6,000 year theory. 6,000 is more consistence with proof of civilization.
no it isn't...at least not in the 21st century on this planet, unless you have an iq that doesn't allow for thought processes beyond repeating television commercials.
-
no...whale protein must be affecting your eyesight...go back and read what i was replying to.
Never mind then... I'm just being a spelling/grammar Nazi again I suppose.
...
However... What does "emphatically disproven" actually mean?
-
Never mind then... I'm just being a spelling/grammar Nazi again I suppose.
...
However... What does "emphatically disproven" actually mean?
you got me :headscratch: maybe it means disproven with gusto? :lol
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs
-
dammit meatwad! if your not going to take this seriously your going to time out.
(http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo194/TheCuteWoofer/Av%20and%20Sig/the_cubing_sig.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/TheCuteWoofer/media/Av%20and%20Sig/the_cubing_sig.jpg.html)
now tell me i've been a bad boy.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :cry
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
My question is how primitive was early man?
chooseve some thoughts and Ideas but would like to see a debate on what you think and why...
Maybe we were genetically created by some kind of Anunaki, like in Sumerian scripts; even this narrow fragile environment we live in is artificially created and maintained from outside,: look around us, we live on a boiling magma, ,black holes are eating galaxy's alive, the stars are throwing all kind of particles and plasma towards us meteors and planets are coliding around us, and this planet average terain should be submerged under3000ft of waters . I believe was same IQ, cuz needed to chose between god and evil and fight against the forces of darkness, ; this fight didn't start here, was brought here with us..
Ahh squelch me , I had some beers.,,
-
Enjoy:
The Pale Blue Dot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923jxZY2NPI)
The Most Astounding Fact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU)
-
Not once in this thread was there any mention of the spaghetti monster :(
-
That's 'cos it's not real.
-
Noah trailer;
http://youtu.be/FRTlT3DEydU
-
Noah trailer;
http://youtu.be/FRTlT3DEydU
Peter Jackson directing? :lol
-
Ok to get back on tract......... Do you believe the Egyptians had some sort of caculator to figure out some of the things they did. Take the Great Pyramid at Giza, Egypt. It is a huge stone monument built over 2,000 years before Christ. It was 481 feet tall, and its base covers about 13 acres. It has more than two million stone blocks in it that weigh 5,000 pounds apiece. These blocks didn’t all come from nearby, either. It is remarkably precise, being in line with the points of the compass and also sitting level. Does this sound primitive? If you would load a semi with the legal limit of 80,000 pounds you would have a line of semi from St. Louis to San Fansico.
How do you think they achieved that?? Sorry for my bad spelling
-
wpeters did you know the basics for algebra were created after a guy visited egypt?
semp
-
We are talking about these guys. Right?
www.earlymanarmy.com (http://www.earlymanarmy.com)
-
How do you think they achieved that??
Manpower.
Lots of it. :old:
-
Manpower.
Lots of it. :old:
About 10,000 workers working the flood season for about 20 years with a well planned and executed construction plan. We have very good archeological data on the pyramids now.
Keep in mind, the ancients were not stupid.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dGj9h8ggCc
:rock :cheers:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/valkyria.jpg)
-
Satan put the dinosaur bones in the ground to deceive us......... :noid
-
Satan put the dinosaur bones in the ground to deceive us......... :noid
Now that's a dangerous thought! But not in a way you might first think about...
Let's think hypothetically to avoid any conflicts: If we believe that Satan exists as the counterpart of God, then wouldn't spreading information like that work for Satan? I mean, getting some people to believe things like that would make them the laugh of the town. Then anyone who'd want himself to be taken seriously would rather not admit to belong into said group. Thus a small group of innocent but mislead believers could drive a vast amount of "clever" people away from the church. Bet Satan would be happy about that...
There's great hidden wisdom in the MIB movies: People won't believe the obvious if it's published in the "wrong" paper...
-
I'm a Diest and believe the Angels/UFO's at the behest of God seeded this miracle planet with Human Hosts capable of supporting a soul that needs to grow to achieve a higher plane of existence. You have several lives to work on your soul and temptation is a test to see if you are evolved enough to move on. Many fail and repeat the trials of life many times self destructing never reaching the level they should. Many let evil and hate shroud what is truly important.
The universal gift from God is love.
I am not yet worthy. But won't stop trying. :pray
Never in the field of humans desperately trying to find meaning for their desperate and pitiful lives has so much bollocks been spouted by so many god botherers
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agJ2xCionlY
-
Ok to get back on tract......... Do you believe the Egyptians had some sort of caculator to figure out some of the things they did. Take the Great Pyramid at Giza, Egypt. It is a huge stone monument built over 2,000 years before Christ. It was 481 feet tall, and its base covers about 13 acres. It has more than two million stone blocks in it that weigh 5,000 pounds apiece. These blocks didn’t all come from nearby, either. It is remarkably precise, being in line with the points of the compass and also sitting level. Does this sound primitive? If you would load a semi with the legal limit of 80,000 pounds you would have a line of semi from St. Louis to San Fansico.
How do you think they achieved that?? Sorry for my bad spelling
Dood! Humans been around for a long time. no, a lot longer than that.
Have you ever looked another animal in the eye? Freaky shuff man.
Did you know they found bones of mini humans on a island in Indonesia. Frikn mini humans. :rofl
This is when being human is really cool. Because one can see we know knothing. We were raised on fairy tales and stories that still are the foundation of our belief today. The implications of which are amazing, the possibilities endless.
:noid
-
Dood! Humans been around for a long time. no, a lot longer than that.
Have you ever looked another animal in the eye? Freaky shuff man.
Did you know they found bones of mini humans on a island in Indonesia. Frikn mini humans. :rofl
This is when being human is really cool. Because one can see we know knothing. We were raised on fairy tales and stories that still are the foundation of our belief today. The implications of which are amazing, the possibilities endless.
:noid
I dated a girl that was 4'8 at 32 years of age. I got a lot of mean looks from people who thought I was grabbing a child.
semp
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
My question is how primitive was early man?
I have some thoughts and Ideas but would like to see a debate on what you think and why...
So the Banded Ironstone in my garage that has been dated at 4.6 million years is off by that much? So the same formations from the Appalachian region, found in Scotland, Ireland, England and the Atlas Mountains in Morocco were rafted over in the last 6,000 years?
My question is why you created this topic and what you attempted to prove? Because you already lost. Maybe post up a 5th "Buying a New PC thread"?
-
One thing that fascinates me is, more then you would think, I run into people who dont know a thing about the science of evolution. I mean not even that it exists. I tell them of the evidence of the evolving human animal and they look at me like Im nuts. Its not that they just believe in Adam, Eve at al ; Its that they never even heard about the scientific theory.
And these arent dumb people. Or completely uneducated. When I tell them we share 97% of the same DNA as chimpanzees they look at me like Im nuts.
-
Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
October 27, 2004
Scientists have found skeletons of a hobbit-like species of human that grew no larger than a three-year-old modern child (See pictures). The tiny humans, who had skulls about the size of grapefruits, lived with pygmy elephants and Komodo dragons on a remote island in Indonesia 18,000 years ago.
Australian and Indonesian researchers discovered bones of the miniature humans in a cave on Flores, an island east of Bali and midway between Asia and Australia.
Scientists have determined that the first skeleton they found belongs to a species of human completely new to science. Named Homo floresiensis, after the island on which it was found, the tiny human has also been dubbed by dig workers as the "hobbit," after the tiny creatures from the Lord of the Rings books.
The original skeleton, a female, stood at just 1 meter (3.3 feet) tall, weighed about 25 kilograms (55 pounds), and was around 30 years old at the time of her death 18,000 years ago.
The skeleton was found in the same sediment deposits on Flores that have also been found to contain stone tools and the bones of dwarf elephants, giant rodents, and Komodo dragons, lizards that can grow to 10 feet (3 meters) and that still live today.
Homo floresienses has been described as one of the most spectacular discoveries in paleoanthropology in half a century—and the most extreme human ever discovered.
The species inhabited Flores as recently as 13,000 years ago, which means it would have lived at the same time as modern humans, scientists say.
"To find that as recently as perhaps 13,000 years ago, there was another upright, bipedal—although small-brained—creature walking the planet at the same time as modern humans is as exciting as it was unexpected," said Peter Brown, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New England in New South Wales, Australia.
Brown is a co-author of the study describing the findings, which appears in the October 28 issue of the science journal Nature. The National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration has sponsored research related to the discovery. The find will be covered in greater detail in a documentary airing early next year on the National Geographic Channel.
"It is totally unexpected," said Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins program at the Natural History Museum in London. "To have early humans on the remote island of Flores is surprising enough. That some are only about a meter tall with a chimp-size brain is even more remarkable. That they were still there less than 20,000 years ago, and [that] modern humans must have met them, is astonishing."
The researchers estimate that the tiny people lived on Flores from about 95,000 years ago until at least 13,000 years ago. The scientists base their theory on charred bones and stone tools found on the island. The blades, perforators, points, and other cutting and chopping utensils were apparently used to hunt big game.
In an accompanying Nature commentary, Marta Mirazón Lahr and Robert Foley, both with the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at the University of Cambridge, England, describe Homo floresiensis as changing our understanding of late human evolutionary geography, biology, and culture.
The discovery shows that the genus Homo is more varied and more flexible in its ability to adapt than previously thought. (The genus Homo also includes modern humans, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Neandertals—all of which are marked by relatively large braincases, erect posture, opposable thumbs, and the ability to make tools.)
"Homo floresiensis is an addition to the short list of other human species that lived at the same time as modern humans. I think people will be surprised to learn that not so long ago, we were not alone," said Brown.
Despite its smaller body size, smaller brain, and mixture of primitive and advanced anatomical features, the new species falls firmly within the genus Homo. The researchers speculate that the hobbit and her peers evolved from a normal-size, island-hopping Homo erectus population that reached Flores around 840,000 years ago.
"Physically, they were about the size of a three-year old Homo sapiens [modern human] child, but with a braincase only one-third as large," said Richard Roberts, a geochronologist at the University of Wollongong, Australia, and one on the co-authors of the research paper. "They had slightly longer arms than us. More conspicuously, they had hard, thicker eyebrow ridges than us, a sharply sloping forehead, and no chin."
"While they don't look like modern humans, some of their behaviors were surprisingly human," said Brown, the study co-author.
The Flores people used fire in hearths for cooking and hunted stegodon, a primitive dwarf elephant found on the island. Although small, the stegodon still weighed about 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds), and would pose a significant challenge to a hunter the size of a three-year-old modern human child. Hunting must have required joint communication and planning, the researchers say.
Almost all of the stegodon bones associated with the human artifacts are of juveniles, suggesting the tiny humans selectively hunted the smallest stegodons. The Flores humans' diets also included fish, frogs, snakes, tortoises, birds, and rodents.
"The hobbit was nobody's fool," Roberts said. "They survived alongside us [Homo sapiens] for at least 30,000 years, and we're not known for being very amiable eco-companions. And the hobbits were managing some extraordinary things—manufacturing sophisticated stone tools, hunting pygmy elephants, and crossing at least two water barriers to reach Flores from mainland Asia—with a brain only one-third the size of ours.
"Given that Homo floresiensis is the smallest human species ever discovered, they out-punch every known human intellectually, pound for pound."
Both the tiny humans and the dwarfed elephants appear to have become extinct at about the same time as the result of a major volcanic eruption.
Mingling of the Human Tribes
There is no evidence of modern humans reaching Flores before 11,000 years ago, so it is unknown whether the hobbit intermingled with modern humans. The researchers found hobbit and pygmy stegodon remains only below a 12,000-year-old volcanic ash layer. Modern human remains were found only above the layer.
Still, rumors, myths, and legends of tiny creatures have swirled around the isolated island for centuries. It's certainly possible that they interacted with modern humans, according to the researchers.
"Looked at from a regional perspective, we definitely have modern humans in Australia from at least 40,000 years ago, and in Borneo from at least 43,000 years ago," Roberts said. "So there was temporal overlap between the hobbits and ourselves from at least 40,000 years ago until at least 18,000 years ago—more than 20,000 years minimum. What was the nature of their interaction? We have absolutely no idea. We need more sites and more hard evidence, and that's the next phase of our investigation."
Island Dwarfing
Researchers are also anxious to investigate how and why the hobbits came to be so small. When scientists discovered the hobbit remains, they thought it was the skeleton of a child. There was no record of human adults that were that small. Modern pygmies are considerably taller at about 1.4 to 1.5 meters (4.6 to nearly 5 feet) tall.
"H. floresiensis presents an intriguing problem in evolutionary biology," Brown said.
The most likely explanation is that, over thousands of years, the species became smaller because environmental conditions favored smaller body size. Dwarfing of mammals on islands is a well-known process and seen worldwide. Islands frequently provide a limited food supply, few predators, and few species competing for the same environmental niche. Survival would depend on minimizing daily energy requirements.
But there is no absolute proof that this is what in fact happened with this small human.
"While there are stone tools dated as far back as 840,000 years ago, no fossils of large-bodied ancestors have ever been found" on Flores, Brown said. "There is some possibility [Homo floresiensis] arrived on the island small-bodied."
"I could not have predicted such a discovery in a million years," said Stringer, of London's Natural History Museum. "This find shows us how much we still have to learn about human evolution, particularly in Southeast Asia."
-
Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia
Blah, blah, blah, Komodo dragons, blah, blah, blah.....
Dragons ate the little folk and burned the vale. Only a ring survived.......
:aok
-
I always wondered about your gold tooth.
:noid
-
Dragons ate the little folk and burned the vale. Only a ring survived.......
:aok
So you're saying there was Smog back then also. :noid
Hmm Elves were Martians and the Orcs were the Lizard Aliens come to earth to pillage the Cows. (http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/aianPatel/emoticon-animal-007.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/aianPatel/media/emoticon-animal-007.gif.html)
-
One thing that fascinates me is, more then you would think, I run into people who dont know a thing about the science of evolution. I mean not even that it exists. I tell them of the evidence of the evolving human animal and they look at me like Im nuts. Its not that they just believe in Adam, Eve at al ; Its that they never even heard about the scientific theory.
And these arent dumb people. Or completely uneducated. When I tell them we share 97% of the same DNA as chimpanzees they look at me like Im nuts.
i wouldn't be so quick to swallow the crap the monkey people are tossing any more than i would the holy rollers. it would be very somewhat more believable if all the conjecture was based on some evidence that involved more than a single fossilized tooth or toe bone found by accident. the crap muckers still haven't figured out how small limited bands turned into large populations of more advanced design in less time than it took for the monkeys to stand upright. by now even high school dropouts know human inbreeding does not yield the same results that the monkey theorists are trying to get us to believe.
-
Every time you get the flu you're suffering from evidence of evolution. The more complex the organism the longer it takes.
-
Every time you get the flu you're suffering from evidence of evolution. The more complex the organism the longer it takes.
if we reproduced and adapted like a virus, that would be valid...
-
if we reproduced and adapted like a virus, that would be valid...
That is irrelevant. The relevant thing is the error rate when DNA copies itself.
-
That is irrelevant. The relevant thing is the error rate when DNA copies itself.
it is just as relevant.
-
it is just as relevant.
No its not.
-
Early Man:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/humanevolution.jpg)
-
Is that Al Sharpton in the bottom right?
-
:lol
-
Early Man:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/humanevolution.jpg)
So I guess we're all a bunch of homos.
-
Early Man:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/humanevolution.jpg)
amazing the crap people will swallow as long as it's wrapped in .phd. that might explain the existence of certain types of "humans" but it doesn't account for reality.
-
i wouldn't be so quick to swallow the crap the monkey people are tossing any more than i would the holy rollers. it would be very somewhat more believable if all the conjecture was based on some evidence that involved more than a single fossilized tooth or toe bone found by accident. the crap muckers still haven't figured out how small limited bands turned into large populations of more advanced design in less time than it took for the monkeys to stand upright. by now even high school dropouts know human inbreeding does not yield the same results that the monkey theorists are trying to get us to believe.
You dont need to swallow their crap. The stories they weave are just educated guesses. They dont know the entire story, far from it. When something new is found it will change all their theories. If nothing is found the story will never be complete.
Personally I find geology a little more factual (since it is based on physical evidence and real world logic) than strange stories about poof, the humans appear. To this day I do not think there has been any physical evidence that magic is real. Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nadda, Nothing, Not once.
-
amazing the crap people will swallow as long as it's wrapped in .phd. that might explain the existence of certain types of "humans" but it doesn't account for reality.
Of course it doesn't account for reality, we're all here because of Xenu.
All glory to Xenu!!!!!!
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/1185946_659957927358555_363073187_n.jpg)
-
One thing that fascinates me is, more then you would think, I run into people who dont know a thing about the science of evolution. I mean not even that it exists. I tell them of the evidence of the evolving human animal and they look at me like Im nuts. Its not that they just believe in Adam, Eve at al ; Its that they never even heard about the scientific theory.
And these arent dumb people. Or completely uneducated. When I tell them we share 97% of the same DNA as chimpanzees they look at me like Im nuts.
They know it -- they just don't know that they know it. Everyone has a reasonable idea of how different breeds of dogs come about, for example.
-
They know it -- they just don't know that they know it. Everyone has a reasonable idea of how different breeds of dogs come about, for example.
a breed isn't a new species. regardless of what the primitives attempt to claim, you can't get a possum after 5,000 years of dog breeding even though they are both mammals.
-
a breed isn't a new species. regardless of what the primitives attempt to claim, you can't get a possum after 5,000 years of dog breeding even though they are both mammals.
WTF is this guy talking about?
-
WTF is this guy talking about?
Forget it; he's rolling...
-
a breed isn't a new species. regardless of what the primitives attempt to claim, you can't get a possum after 5,000 years of dog breeding even though they are both mammals.
You couldn't create a possum, but you could create a separate species from dogs. I.e. a dog-like animal that is no longer able to breed with the established dog species. You can't go back through evolution and take a different branch of mammalian evolution to somehow breed a dog into a possum. Well, perhaps you could, but it would take a lot longer than 5,000 years... Millions of years probably. You'd first have to devolve the dog to the point of its closest common ancestor with the possums, and then force it to evolve along the same lines as the possum did. Creationists love to ramble on about how humans couldn't have evolved from monkeys, which is true. Humans and the rest of the apes all speciated from common ancestors: the species that, for various reasons, has evolved into two distinct species. If you go back through the mammalian tree, you'll find the point at which the branch that led to horses and the branch that led to lions split, and if you go way back, you'll find the first common ancestor mammals share, or the point at which mammals essentially began to exist.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/An_evolutionary_tree_of_mammals.jpeg)
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/1185946_659957927358555_363073187_n.jpg)
The simplest cells have millions of parts that have to be precisely arranged and functioning simultaneously for the cell to survive. They must all be there. There is no way that chance could do this. To give an idea of what the chances are, let’s look at a simple system of 200 parts. The chances of them all coming together in a certain order in one try are one time out of a number expressed as 1 with 375 zeroes after it. That number is many times more than how many atoms would fit in the whole would know universe! If the chances are that small for only 200 parts, how about the millions of parts required in the simplest cell? There is no way it could happen!!!!
-
Life didn't start with a functioning cell. Living things are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not spontaneously pop into existence fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously. Simple organic molecules are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules are just long chains of simple nucleotides.
-
Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4
-
The simplest cells have millions of parts that have to be precisely arranged and functioning simultaneously for the cell to survive. They must all be there. There is no way that chance could do this. To give an idea of what the chances are, let’s look at a simple system of 200 parts. The chances of them all coming together in a certain order in one try are one time out of a number expressed as 1 with 375 zeroes after it. That number is many times more than how many atoms would fit in the whole would know universe! If the chances are that small for only 200 parts, how about the millions of parts required in the simplest cell? There is no way it could happen!!!!
Personal Incredulity...again. You're also essentially making an "irreducible complexity" argument, which is thoroughly debunked (just some examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html)
If these life forms appeared, fully-formed, spontaneously? Sure, you'd be correct.
However, *random mutations* selected in a *non-random* manner by nature's course, piled on over millions of years is more than feasible.
-
One thing that fascinates me is, more then you would think, I run into people who dont know a thing about the science of evolution. I mean not even that it exists. I tell them of the evidence of the evolving human animal and they look at me like Im nuts. Its not that they just believe in Adam, Eve at al ; Its that they never even heard about the scientific theory.
And these arent dumb people. Or completely uneducated. When I tell them we share 97% of the same DNA as chimpanzees they look at me like Im nuts.
Here is a column written by Jane Eisner in the October 13, 2005, Philadelphia Inquirer. The title is…
“Of Faith and Science”
The latest USA Today /CNN/Gallup Poll says that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, believe that God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible. Man, from the dust of the Earth. Woman from man’s rib.
A scant 12 percent think that human being evolved without an assist from God. The rest seem to choose some sort of middle ground, giving God a supporting role in an evolutionary process that’s gone on for millions of years.
But here’s the uncomfortable revelation: Opinion on evolution is broadly correlated to income. Those in the lowest income brackets are twice as likely to views the Adam and Eve story incontrovertible fact than are those at the top of the salary scaled. {Also,} college graduates are twice as likely as those with just a high school diploma to accept the natural-selection theory of evolution.
-
You couldn't create a possum, but you could create a separate species from dogs. I.e. a dog-like animal that is no longer able to breed with the established dog species. You can't go back through evolution and take a different branch of mammalian evolution to somehow breed a dog into a possum. Well, perhaps you could, but it would take a lot longer than 5,000 years... Millions of years probably. You'd first have to devolve the dog to the point of its closest common ancestor with the possums, and then force it to evolve along the same lines as the possum did. Creationists love to ramble on about how humans couldn't have evolved from monkeys, which is true. Humans and the rest of the apes all speciated from common ancestors: the species that, for various reasons, has evolved into two distinct species. If you go back through the mammalian tree, you'll find the point at which the branch that led to horses and the branch that led to lions split, and if you go way back, you'll find the first common ancestor mammals share, or the point at which mammals essentially began to exist.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/An_evolutionary_tree_of_mammals.jpeg)
it's about time you started saying something besides nonsense dork... :neener: i'll get to you later...
WTF is this guy talking about?
something a lot more intelligent than you can manage and it doesn't involve swallowing conjecture as fact...
-
Life didn't start with a functioning cell. Living things are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not spontaneously pop into existence fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously. Simple organic molecules are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules are just long chains of simple nucleotides.
You cant have a body lying around that happened by chance just to sit up and start breathing... Same with a cell. Does't matter wether the cell is simple or complex. The chances of it coming to be whole are not even possible. If the chances of putting something that has 200 parts back together the right way the first time is 1:1 with 375 zeros following this one. There is no way that a simple organism could be formed by chance...
Ok scientist can create some simple organic molecules.. But they know what they are made of before they start the process. There is now way that the could create a organic molecule simple or complex just by randomly butting things together..
Scientist can clone plants, animals, and humans, but there is no way that they could creat a human by making putting body parts together.. They cant create a Frankenstein.
Same with plants. Life is given. It is not made by us humans or random chance.
There are Anomaly in this universe. BUT LIFE IS NOT ONE.
-
Evolution does exist and does happen. If you don't believe me, just wait and don't be surprised in 10-20 years when antibiotics no longer work as most bacteria will have evolved to be resistant.
-
Evolution does exist and does happen. If you don't believe me, just wait and don't be surprised in 10-20 years when antibiotics no longer work as most bacteria will have evolved to be resistant.
that is adaptation...it's the same bacteria, just adapted to insure survival. same as our immune systems.
-
that is adaptation...it's the same bacteria, just adapted to insure survival. same as our immune systems.
What, exactly do you think evolution is??
Correct Answer: "The change in frequency of alleles - or inheritable traits - in a population over time"
-
Evolution does exist and does happen. If you don't believe me, just wait and don't be surprised in 10-20 years when antibiotics no longer work as most bacteria will have evolved to be resistant.
Adaption.... IT is adapting to the enviroment.. If you had poison ivy for grass. Your body would eventually become immune to it... It is not like we would change in to different type of life form.
The theory of evolution says that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms, such as humans coming from monkeys. That means that there has to have been a lot of animals halfway in between, called transitional species. There are no such animals now, nor is there any evidence of these animals in the past. Scientists claim a lot of fossils are transitional, but if you ever look closely, their claims are always shaky.
-
What, exactly do you think evolution is??
Correct Answer: "The change in frequency of alleles - or inheritable traits - in a population over time"
All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).[6]
Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
-
Adaption.... IT is adapting to the enviroment.. If you had poison ivy for grass. Your body would eventually become immune to it... It is not like we would change in to different type of life form.
...and many small adaptations piled upon each other over thousands of generations will yield a very different organism than what you started with - even though each generation is barely distinguishable from the one previous...inches become feet become miles become lightyears, etc.
The theory of evolution says that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms, such as humans coming from monkeys
Wrong. It states that we evolved ALONGSIDE modern monkeys from a now-extinct common ancestor.
That means that there has to have been a lot of animals halfway in between, called transitional species. There are no such animals now, nor is there any evidence of these animals in the past
You mean none of these?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BY9UxMVCEAAO3a2.jpg)
-
wpeters ... Did you watch this?
Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4
-
that is adaptation...it's the same bacteria, just adapted to insure survival. same as our immune systems.
This theory says that anyone less privileged should be dominated or killed. The Nazis were some of the best evolutionist, because they dominated the others so thoroughly.
-
Adaption.... IT is adapting to the enviroment.. If you had poison ivy for grass. Your body would eventually become immune to it... It is not like we would change in to different type of life form.
The theory of evolution says that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms, such as humans coming from monkeys. That means that there has to have been a lot of animals halfway in between, called transitional species. There are no such animals now, nor is there any evidence of these animals in the past. Scientists claim a lot of fossils are transitional, but if you ever look closely, their claims are always shaky.
What you are arguing is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 1809 pre-evelotion theory, which has been disproven long ago.
Giraffes don't have long necks because they stretched their necks and thus passed their stretched necks to their children, rather, the Giraffes that didn't have long necks, couldn't eat, and thus died off, eliminating that attribute from the gene pool.
When adaption is carried to future generations and thus is genetically encoded, it is by definition, evolution. Over millions of generations combined with isolation, this results in a different species.
This theory says that anyone less privileged should be dominated or killed. The Nazis were some of the best evolutionist, because they dominated the others so thoroughly.
the NAZI mentality stems from a mentality that was based on evolution and was in a less extreme way practiced all over the world, including the USA. Its called Eugenics.
-
Ok to get back on tract......... Do you believe the Egyptians had some sort of caculator to figure out some of the things they did. Take the Great Pyramid at Giza, Egypt. It is a huge stone monument built over 2,000 years before Christ. It was 481 feet tall, and its base covers about 13 acres. It has more than two million stone blocks in it that weigh 5,000 pounds apiece. These blocks didn’t all come from nearby, either. It is remarkably precise, being in line with the points of the compass and also sitting level. Does this sound primitive? If you would load a semi with the legal limit of 80,000 pounds you would have a line of semi from St. Louis to San Fansico.
How do you think they achieved that?? Sorry for my bad spelling
I'm going to go out on a limb here......maybe they used their brains?
-
a breed isn't a new species. regardless of what the primitives attempt to claim, you can't get a possum after 5,000 years of dog breeding even though they are both mammals.
The process is the same, and yes, you could.
-
The process is the same, and yes, you could.
maybe they are right, maybe evolution doesn't happen.. I mean how else could you explain this?
(http://2.images.tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/2013/11/bellyfatbbq.jpg)
-
that is adaptation...it's the same bacteria, just adapted to insure survival. same as our immune systems.
It's genetic modification of the bacteria. Ones that are killed by the antibiotic die out, ones that don't (because they have a slightly different series of letters that make up their genetic code) live on, reproduce, and pass the resistant code on to offspring. Bacteria also have the ability to exchange some genes with each other, modifying their DNA in a way additional to reproduction.
-
amazing the crap people will swallow as long as it's wrapped in .phd. that might explain the existence of certain types of "humans" but it doesn't account for reality.
It's amazing the crap people will swallow when its wrapped in "The Book"
-
maybe they are right, maybe evolution doesn't happen.. I mean how else could you explain this?
(http://2.images.tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/2013/11/bellyfatbbq.jpg)
He's just burning calories :lol
-
He's just burning calories :lol
:rofl :rofl
-
Ok to get back on tract......... Do you believe the Egyptians had some sort of caculator to figure out some of the things they did. Take the Great Pyramid at Giza, Egypt. It is a huge stone monument built over 2,000 years before Christ. It was 481 feet tall, and its base covers about 13 acres. It has more than two million stone blocks in it that weigh 5,000 pounds apiece. These blocks didn’t all come from nearby, either. It is remarkably precise, being in line with the points of the compass and also sitting level. Does this sound primitive? If you would load a semi with the legal limit of 80,000 pounds you would have a line of semi from St. Louis to San Fansico.
How do you think they achieved that?? Sorry for my bad spelling
Slavery?
-
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/who-built-the-pyramids/image-05-large.jpg)
-
Slavery?
No, the evidence says the pyramids were not built with slaves. That was what they told Herodotus, but that told was more than 1500 years after they'd been built by Egyptians who had no idea how they'd been built. Evidence says they were farmers and craftsmen who worked on the pyramids during the Nile's flood season. It was back breaking labor, no doubt, but slaves apparently weren't seen as acceptable to use for something of such import. The Egyptians of the time did practice slavery.
-
(http://a1.s6img.com/cdn/box_003/post_13/380683_14583437_lz.jpg)
BTW IN
-
This theory says that anyone less privileged should be dominated or killed.
Which theory says that?
-
No, the evidence says the pyramids were not built with slaves. That was what they told Herodotus, but that told was more than 1500 years after they'd been built by Egyptians who had no idea how they'd been built. Evidence says they were farmers and craftsmen who worked on the pyramids during the Nile's flood season. It was back breaking labor, no doubt, but slaves apparently weren't seen as acceptable to use for something of such import. The Egyptians of the time did practice slavery.
Also, exactly what slavery meant varied culture to culture. IE, what the Germanic cultures called slavery we'd equate more with indentured servitude. So what Herodotus said the Egyptians told him, may not have been what the Egyptians MEANT.
-
Life is slavery for most humans now anyway. There are more slaves now than ever before. The only evolution to slavery in the modern age is that money and choice have been put between duties and survival. These are certainly two good evolutions that make slavery a lot more pleasant, even enjoyable. This is why there are more slaves now than ever before. We are in a golden age for slavery where there is very little racism involved. Everyone has an equal right to become a slave.
-
Life is slavery for most humans now anyway. There are more slaves now than ever before. The only evolution to slavery in the modern age is that money and choice have been put between duties and survival. These are certainly two good evolutions that make slavery a lot more pleasant, even enjoyable. This is why there are more slaves now than ever before. We are in a golden age for slavery where there is very little racism involved. Everyone has an equal right to become a slave.
All social animals are salves to a hierarchy of some kind. Humans are no exception. In hunter gatherer cultures mental health problems don't exist. The village won't eat if the hunters fail. People don't get depressed when their life has meaning.
The problem could be that we have too much freedom. Humans fundamentally want to contribute, when they can't is when you have problems. We're still running the same OS as we did 100,000 years ago.
-
Yeah you're right Suns. Freedom for the individual in solitude is simple enough to achieve but freedom mass produced requires a paradoxical lack of freedom to let everyone have some chance of obtaining whatever freedom is left available. Too much of this mirage of freedom becomes a circular treadmill.
-
Life in western societies today is slavery?
I imagine this akin to someone who is really starving to death looking at a plump western kid complain that, because he didn't get the pizza he wanted, he's starving to death. ;)
-
shhh, im sure they are working on the next revolution. the one where we are all free to ride the comet.
Cave men didnt have ADD, LOL. carry on. Wait wait wait, lucy never got depressed. :rofl no no , hold on, the europeans had it so bad... How bad did they have it? They had it so bad, they wish they were cavemen. :rofl
Can you guys do me favor. Insert yourself here ----------> :bhead before you teach anyone anything. TY
-
Late Men are such Whiners.
(http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv246/six_string/caveman.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/six_string/media/caveman.jpg.html)
-
What you are arguing is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 1809 pre-evelotion theory, which has been disproven long ago.
Giraffes don't have long necks because they stretched their necks and thus passed their stretched necks to their children, rather, the Giraffes that didn't have long necks, couldn't eat, and thus died off, eliminating that attribute from the gene pool.
When adaption is carried to future generations and thus is genetically encoded, it is by definition, evolution. Over millions of generations combined with isolation, this results in a different species.
the NAZI mentality stems from a mentality that was based on evolution and was in a less extreme way practiced all over the world, including the USA. Its called Eugenics.
What are evolutionist believing that they were created finally...
Evolution will be continually disproven.. Also it will always change do to the fact that they cant prove it. Evolutionist can not keep the same theory longer than a leaky cup can keep water in it.
Hey give us some credit. We have been believing the same story for all of history.
-
Hey give us some credit. We have been believing the same story for all of history.
who is we? and no, you haven't...
lot's of kool-aid drinking monkey descendants in this discussion so far...
-
What are evolutionist believing that they were created finally...
Honestly, I know you're just trolling (you've GOT to be), but I'll bite: I can haz Inglish?
Evolution will be continually disproven.. Also it will always change do to the fact that they cant prove it.
Continually? It's held up for 2 centuries...I don't think your "throw whatever I can at the wall on an online forum" is going to take it down...also, as we've mentioned and shown several times already through this thread, evolution is a FACT. The THEORY of evolution EXPLAINS this fact. "Proof" (a poor term in a scientific context - proofs essentially exist in math only...but I digress) is why flu vaccines are updated every season, why you take your full course of antibiotics, etc. It has been demonstrated in experiments (fruit flies, etc.), and *actually observed* in nature:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
In humans: http://www.livescience.com/6663-tibetans-underwent-fastest-evolution-humans.html
Hey give us some credit. We have been believing the same story for all of history.
It's not my position that belief without (...or, in this case, in the face of) evidence is worthy of credit or admiration.
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life…but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” — Chuck Easttom
-
Granted, I've largely just been skimming, but I'm impressed the thread has gone this long without the usual Creationist "It's only a THEORY" counter.
-
Life is slavery for most humans now anyway. There are more slaves now than ever before. The only evolution to slavery in the modern age is that money and choice have been put between duties and survival. These are certainly two good evolutions that make slavery a lot more pleasant, even enjoyable. This is why there are more slaves now than ever before. We are in a golden age for slavery where there is very little racism involved. Everyone has an equal right to become a slave.
That is an absurd statement. You’re trying to take an abstract concept of slavery and equating it to modern life, we are all ‘slaves to the system’ sort of mentality.
There are countless cases of real slavery. Child slavery, prostitution, human trafficking, gulags in North Korea. That is real slavery, where you are bound to servitude as property, without free choice or will, completely subjugated under the power of others.
These are the people suffer the depravity of slavery, and attempting to draw some loose moral equivalence only marginalizes the extent of their suffering.
-
wpeters ... Did you watch this?
Yes I have.. All that is, is a chemical reaction.
There is no way that is a form of life or even proof of the origin of species.
The other fundamental point that is missed. If life did orginate from these photocells how did it survive.. Come on. If it were true why can they not replicate it in a sterile lab. It does not last. How could it last in a natural environment out side of the lab. If evolution is to be believed, you have to have actual proof of replication. Which they can not even create in a lab much less in a harmful environment outside of a lab.
The photocell that was made in that lab could not reproduce. It did mutate but that is not reproducing.
Take a Mule for example. If evolution is true he would be considered a transitional species. The key point that disproves this is a mule is sterile. He cannot survive in evolution's theory of survival of the fittest. Nature will not let him survive.
The biggest hole in evolution is this.
It doesn't just take one simple cell.. It trillions of the same cell to begin to start life. No way it could happen. View my origanl post on what it takes to put 200 things back together the right way the first time.
LtCondor
-
Just because you (or anyone else for that matter) can't wrap your head around it doesn't make it impossible.
Emerson M. Pugh said about the human brain: "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." And the same goes for life itself. If we can't even understand how our own minds work how can we be expected to understand life itself. However, the good thing about reality is that it is true whether you believe in it or not. Show me some evidence of your "creator" and I'll consider your hypothesis.
-
It doesn't just take one simple cell.. It trillions of the same cell to begin to start life. No way it could happen. View my origanl post on what it takes to put 200 things back together the right way the first time.
LtCondor
And you can refer back to MY post where I thoroughly dismantled your previous assertion of this fallacy.
the good thing about reality is that it is true whether you believe in it or not
One of my favorite NDT quotes. :aok
-
Show me some evidence of your "creator" and I'll consider your hypothesis.
pretty sure he's in the same place where the fish that turned into the monkey that turned into your ancestor exists...even after the many mass extinction events.
-
pretty sure he's in the same place where the fish that turned into the monkey that turned into your ancestor exists...even after the many mass extinction events.
Careful: You don't want to wear yourself out attacking those straw men. Save your energy for the arguments we actually make! :neener:
-
Scientists' theories on many things have had to be modified, or thrown out. They spend Billions on a collider to play with atoms and only find more questions than answers. (oh yeah they discovered the "GOD" particle :rofl )
They say we come from apes but can't put together a definitive sampling of each type of evolved human. Where are the missing links?
To say evolution is an absolute fact for every species is the height of Naivety.
So many had faith in Global Warming? :headscratch: These highly educated individuals had to suspend facts for faith. :rolleyes: Show me some evidence of your "creator" and I'll consider your hypothesis.
Somehow in the arm of a spiral galaxy this one little rock protects it's tiny inhabitants from the dangers of the universe.
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc196/pattyrick75/Planet.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/pattyrick75/media/Planet.jpg.html)
-
pretty sure he's in the same place where the fish that turned into the monkey that turned into your ancestor exists...even after the many mass extinction events.
If you really don't believe life in the sea evolved to live on land, and later vice versa... How do you explain fish species living today that walk on land? Why do whales breathe air?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Periophthalmus_gracilis.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Eubalaena_glacialis_with_calf.jpg/536px-Eubalaena_glacialis_with_calf.jpg)
-
Scientists' theories on many things have had to be modified, or thrown out. They spend Billions on a collider to play with atoms and only find more questions than answers. (oh yeah they discovered the "GOD" particle :rofl )
The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" in popular media outside the scientific community. The scientists however have commented (jokingly) that we should stop calling it the God particle since they found evidence of its existence.
-
Science doesn't know everything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE
-
Scientists' theories on many things have had to be modified, or thrown out. They spend Billions on a collider to play with atoms and only find more questions than answers. (oh yeah they discovered the "GOD" particle :rofl )
They say we come from apes but can't put together a definitive sampling of each type of evolved human. Where are the missing links?
To say evolution is an absolute fact for every species is the height of Naivety.
So many had faith in Global Warming? :headscratch: These highly educated individuals had to suspend facts for faith. :rolleyes:
You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as almost everything you've said has already been posited, and debunked.
1. Please show me ONE actual scientific theory that has been completely thrown out in the past 200 years, rather than refined to accommodate new data/evidence.
2. We ARE apes...and as I (and others) have already stated: We did not evolve from modern apes/monkeys/chimps/etc. We evolved ALONGSIDE them. They branched off one way, we went another.
3. Please revisit my post where I show just a small sampling of the transitional fossils/missing links you claim don't exist - even though you're essentially starting to bring in a version of Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox: I'll show you a link (B) between A & C - you immediately say, "yeah, but now there's gaps between A & B and between B & C!" Again, as I already stated: Each generation is almost indistinguishably different from its predecessor - thousands of generations later, however, you face a VERY different organism than what you started with - even though each successive generation appears to be almost the same as the last.
4. Faith is belief without evidence. I don't need faith, because my beliefs follow the evidence available.
-
So there is no way you can believe that life happened as a chain of events, while random, is possible, but, you can believe that there is an omniscient being that created life.
Yes I have.. All that is, is a chemical reaction.
There is no way that is a form of life or even proof of the origin of species.
The other fundamental point that is missed. If life did orginate from these photocells how did it survive.. Come on. If it were true why can they not replicate it in a sterile lab. It does not last. How could it last in a natural environment out side of the lab. If evolution is to be believed, you have to have actual proof of replication. Which they can not even create in a lab much less in a harmful environment outside of a lab.
The photocell that was made in that lab could not reproduce. It did mutate but that is not reproducing.
Take a Mule for example. If evolution is true he would be considered a transitional species. The key point that disproves this is a mule is sterile. He cannot survive in evolution's theory of survival of the fittest. Nature will not let him survive.
The biggest hole in evolution is this.
It doesn't just take one simple cell.. It trillions of the same cell to begin to start life. No way it could happen. View my origanl post on what it takes to put 200 things back together the right way the first time.
LtCondor
You are asking others to have pure faith in your theory because there is no proof of an omniscient being, and ignoring every piece of scientific evidence that will lead you to a conclusion contrary to your faith. Your discussion is then purely about religion and should not be allowed here as per the rules sir.
-
Careful: You don't want to wear yourself out attacking those straw men. Save your energy for the arguments we actually make! :neener:
:rofl i don't see straw men any more than i see a tail hanging out the rear of your trousers. :neener:
If you really don't believe life in the sea evolved to live on land, and later vice versa... How do you explain fish species living today that walk on land? Why do whales breathe air?
same way i would explain the existence of the platypus...there is a reason they don't exist all over the planet. when you find a way for inter species mating to work, you will have your monkey man. pretty sure you could find a couple of volunteers in these forums that want to try some monkey tail...
-
I'm sorry, I don't play the banjo. :P
-
But seriously, why do whales breathe air? What kind of designer would do that?
-
All organisms are defined by the sequence of letters that make up their DNA. Change the code of the DNA, and you create different characteristics or create a different organism. Organisms can be copied (cloning of cells having been done for a long time, cloning of a mammal the first time in 1996, and it is so mainstream today that if you live in the US, you almost certainly have eaten cloned plants and have probably eaten food from cloned animals), changed (gene editing, gene deletion, gene silencing, gene addition, gene therapy, etc., such as genetic conditions cured by gene therapy starting in about 2006), or created from scratch (manufacture an artificial genome and create a living cell, done in 2010). This is very well established these days and is no more a theory than computer programming, electronics, or automobile mechanics are theories. It is used in practice in the fields of biology and agriculture every day.
A 747 probably would have seemed like unfathomable magic in 500 BC, but today, a 747 (although still awesome) isn't considered mysterious or controversial.
The workings of DNA and organisms are going from being mysterious and unknown to being (although still awesome) increasingly well understood, with that understanding increasingly allowing purposeful modification and engineering.
This is the field I work in currently -- synthesizing DNA -- and many of our customers are at the cutting edge of synthetic biology.
-
You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as almost everything you've said has already been posited, and debunked.
1. Please show me ONE actual scientific theory that has been completely thrown out in the past 200 years, rather than refined to accommodate new data/evidence.
2. We ARE apes...and as I (and others) have already stated: We did not evolve from modern apes/monkeys/chimps/etc. We evolved ALONGSIDE them. They branched off one way, we went another.
3. Please revisit my post where I show just a small sampling of the transitional fossils/missing links you claim don't exist - even though you're essentially starting to bring in a version of Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox: I'll show you a link (B) between A & C - you immediately say, "yeah, but now there's gaps between A & B and between B & C!" Again, as I already stated: Each generation is almost indistinguishably different from its predecessor - thousands of generations later, however, you face a VERY different organism than what you started with - even though each successive generation appears to be almost the same as the last.
4. Faith is belief without evidence. I don't need faith, because my beliefs follow the evidence available.
But indeed you do need Faith. :old: You have faith in those findings of scientists you have never met. You assume that the fossil evidence was properly dated as carbon dating has some error to it. I have faith you are not trying intentionally to deceive with some FX picture of skulls made with plaster.
Where are the pre-ape fossils, what did apes evolve from? Fish? Rodents? Are the Dinosaurs' descendants birds as some believe now. That is one theory that has changed quite a bit in the last 200 years. Modified or thrown out you decide. Enlighten me I want to Believe! :O
-
All organisms are defined by the sequence of letters that make up their DNA. Change the code of the DNA, and you create different characteristics or create a different organism. Organisms can be copied (cloning of cells having been done for a long time, cloning of a mammal the first time in 1996, and it is so mainstream today that if you live in the US, you almost certainly have eaten cloned plants and have probably eaten food from cloned animals), changed (gene editing, gene deletion, gene silencing, gene addition, gene therapy, etc., such as genetic conditions cured by gene therapy starting in about 2006), or created from scratch (manufacture an artificial genome and create a living cell, done in 2010). This is very well established these days and is no more a theory than computer programming, electronics, or automobile mechanics are theories. It is used in practice in the fields of biology and agriculture every day.
A 747 probably would have seemed like unfathomable magic in 500 BC, but today, a 747 (although still awesome) isn't considered mysterious or controversial.
The workings of DNA and organisms are going from being mysterious and unknown to being (although still awesome) increasingly well understood, with that understanding increasingly allowing purposeful modification and engineering.
This is the field I work in currently -- synthesizing DNA -- and many of our customers are at the cutting edge of synthetic biology.
that doesn't quite so easily in nature, especially after 99% of the genetic pool is destroyed, and that is the problem with the human monkey theory. maybe once a live sasquatch is captured, many of the questions and missing pieces will be found, but right now it just doesn't work, even in a lab.
-
But indeed you do need Faith. :old: You have faith in those findings of scientists you have never met.
No. That's where the scientific method with its independent verification process comes in. I don't trust anything a scientist says until his/her findings have been independently verified by others. Repeatability of experiments is a key part of the scientific method. If an experiment can't be reproduced successfully it never happened. Scientists are people, and have the same fallibility as any other people.
-
The machinery of how DNA->RNA->proteins is the hardware of life. The specific DNA code is like software. Change it, and you get different functions (Windows XP -> Windows 7, which can mostly run the same applications, like different breeds of dogs that can interbreed). Change it enough, and you get different versions (Windows XP vs. Apple's OS X, which are mostly not compatible, like how dogs and cats can't interbreed). It is all a change of code.
As for evolution, we know that the DNA code gets changed through reproduction (such as by crossover and mutation). There are optimization algorithms (genetic optimization and genetic programming) that use analogs of crossover and mutation as software tools to optimize things, so it is no mystery how crossover and mutation can lead to optimization.
-
For those who can positively say there is no Creator.......
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-
that doesn't quite so easily in nature, especially after 99% of the genetic pool is destroyed, and that is the problem with the human monkey theory. maybe once a live sasquatch is captured, many of the questions and missing pieces will be found, but right now it just doesn't work, even in a lab.
DNA is DNA. How it works in the lab is how it works in nature.
-
I have absolutely no difficulties to believe this world and all of its inhabitants has been created rather than being the result of a series of highly improbable incidents. Not that I couldn't believe each of those could happen, but that they would take place in the right order in the right place at the right time. The elements of a cell are very short-lived without the cell wall. My question is, although it might be possible to create all of the elements even at the same time, how to get the right amount of them inside some kind of a bubble where they could start co-operating and maybe later reproducing? A helping hand would've been very - helpful.
Genesis doesn't actually tell how or when God created the heaven and the earth. No magic, no giant hands baking lava, just "created". "How" and "when" are questions for true scientists who are willing to accept the truth whatever it may be and change their opinions accordingly without fear for losing their faces.
-
Genesis doesn't actually tell how or when God created the heaven and the earth. No magic, no giant hands baking lava, just "created". "How" and "when" are questions for true scientists who are willing to accept the truth whatever it may be and change their opinions accordingly without fear for losing their faces.
QFT.
Science takes care of the How and When. If you want to involve faith, let that answer the "Why?"
-
"Life" as we know it are molecular machines. Nothing "more", however it still is a LOT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU
-
For those who can positively say there is no Creator.......
No one can positively prove a negative, nor do they have to.
-
That is an absurd statement. You’re trying to take an abstract concept of slavery and equating it to modern life, we are all ‘slaves to the system’ sort of mentality.
There are countless cases of real slavery. Child slavery, prostitution, human trafficking, gulags in North Korea. That is real slavery, where you are bound to servitude as property, without free choice or will, completely subjugated under the power of others.
These are the people suffer the depravity of slavery, and attempting to draw some loose moral equivalence only marginalizes the extent of their suffering.
I disagree with that. Yes I agree that there are many forms of slavery alive today. The existence of forced and tragic, more obvious slavery in today's world does not prohibit other more carefully concealed forms of slavery from existing alongside. I am not equating one to the other, simply stating that a majority of humans fall into some form of unavoidable servitude in one form or another. The existence of a more basic and horrific form of slavery today only adds to the percentage of humans who are in bondage, it does not negate the easier forms of slavery. If you'll notice I did say that some of today's modern forms of slavery have been tailored to the point of even being quite enjoyable in most cases. Those who recognise their hands being burned do not marginalize those who get their whole body torched.
-
Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron.
-
Slaves have no freedom and cannot choose what they do, where they go, or where they live.
Taking the UK as an example, almost no one is a slave. (I would say "no one", but in the whole nation, there is probably someone being illegally kept somewhere, just like in the US, where we find from time to time some monster who has locked an unfortunate into the basement for years.)
Voluntary anything (employment included) and slavery are two completely different things.
Why so sour on today's world?
It's not perfect, but it is a lot better than how the typical person lived in the past (say, 1800's or earlier -- or today in some third-world countries). Even poor people in western countries have what those past people would classify as great luxuries. In the US, for example, the typical poor person has: enough food to eat so that obesity is the major health problem; a television; a car; an abode; heating and air conditioning; clothes; a microwave; a conventional oven; an indoor bathroom; spices; running water; electricity; lighting; carpeting; furniture; books; a cell phone; a refrigerator; a freezer; and a console game. We need to keep working to make things better, of course, to create a vibrant, growing economy with enough opportunity for all who have a desire to go for it; but the life of humans has been on a major upswing in modern times.
-
Maybe this will help temper some peoples ignorance..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThh6bU0-OU
and yes, we do have slaves... Sadly many people are forced to come to the US to pay off 'debts' where they are then turned into slaves (often sex slaves). It is the basis/biz model for much of the prostitution industry.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3818/10949141505_4e4561a7f3.jpg)
-
I am....simply stating that a majority of humans fall into some form of unavoidable servitude in one form or another.
Would you consider me a form of slave? I'm considered quite wealthy even by US standards, but we have to work to pay for the mortgages, cars, food, etc.. I can choose who I work for, but I still have to work, is that unavoidable servitude.
How about the blue collar factory worker or farmer, he has to earn money to buy the necessities for life, is he a slave?
I suspect you are confusing that most people are compelled to do things in order that they may live and function in society, with being the 'property' of others.
I think when you separate those you find the 'majority' of people don't fall into the slave category.
-
Nothing like debating creation/evolution/religion in a cartoon game forum :rolleyes:
Waiting for Bustr to publish his thesis here.
-
Nothing like debating creation/evolution/religion in a cartoon game forum :rolleyes:
Waiting for Bustr to publish his thesis here.
lol, as long as it is kept civil and at least somewhat objective. there is no reason for any part of this discussion to escalate to the normal series of personal attacks...with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
-
lol, as long as it is kept civil and at least somewhat objective. there is no reason for any part of this discussion to escalate to the normal series of personal attacks...with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
I applaud your optimism. But.....
-
ooh i missed this one in the junk...
You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as almost everything you've said has already been posited, and debunked.
1. Please show me ONE actual scientific theory that has been completely thrown out in the past 200 years, rather than refined to accommodate new data/evidence.
phlogiston (sp?) theory...
2. We ARE apes...and as I (and others) have already stated: We did not evolve from modern apes/monkeys/chimps/etc. We evolved ALONGSIDE them. They branched off one way, we went another.
we have been classified as primates due to some physical similarities with higher level apes.
3. Please revisit my post where I show just a small sampling of the transitional fossils/missing links you claim don't exist - even though you're essentially starting to bring in a version of Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox: I'll show you a link (B) between A & C - you immediately say, "yeah, but now there's gaps between A & B and between B & C!" Again, as I already stated: Each generation is almost indistinguishably different from its predecessor - thousands of generations later, however, you face a VERY different organism than what you started with - even though each successive generation appears to be almost the same as the last.
the problem with those fossils and the theories based off them, is that much of the theory rests on the faith that a single fossilized tooth or bone fragment from a single specimen would actually show the proper genetic code needed to fit the chain if it were possible extract the genetic material needed.
4. Faith is belief without evidence. I don't need faith, because my beliefs follow the evidence available.
that is actually amazing just looking at the faith you have in less evidence than what has been proven to be fact from a book full of fairy tales.
-
phlogiston (sp?) theory...
Disproved more than 200 years ago by a comfortable margin
A better example would've been the aether that would've been a physical thing all around us that light waves propagate through, that was considered one of the possible explanations of light up until the end of the 19th century, but that wasn't something that was very widely accepted or had any feeling of 'fact' to it at any point in the past 200 years
the problem with those fossils and the theories based off them, is that much of the theory rests on the faith that a single fossilized tooth or bone fragment from a single specimen would actually show the proper genetic code needed to fit the chain if it were possible extract the genetic material needed.
you don't understand how scientific method works
-
Disproved more than 200 years ago by a comfortable margin
A better example would've been the aether that would've been a physical thing all around us that light waves propagate through, that was considered one of the possible explanations of light up until the end of the 19th century, but that wasn't something that was very widely accepted or had any feeling of 'fact' to it at any point in the past 200 years
you don't understand how scientific method works
I don't even have to respond...I think you and GScholz have it covered.
*Kicks feet up*
:cheers:
-
you don't understand how scientific method works
i know it very well and in the case of human evolution it isn't being properly applied...
I don't even have to respond...I think you and GScholz have it covered.
*Kicks feet up*
:cheers:
not sure why, you haven't proven anything... :neener: there is more evidence of global ancient alien interaction with humans than there is for the existence of some of the humanoids you think prove humans evolved from apes. there has yet to be even a theory as to what triggered the genetic differences and no one can explain how limited populations with limited gene pools grew to the extent needed to create the early civilizations.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3818/10949141505_4e4561a7f3.jpg)
:rofl :aok
-
Gyrene never bathes and does not use toilet paper.
-
i know it very well and in the case of human evolution it isn't being properly applied...
When Mendeleev created the periodic table in the mid-19th century, there were many holes in it that could not be explained at the time (there of course were still many undiscovered elements). Of course, this wasn't based on any kind of the sub atomic theory we now know is responsible for the properties of the elements, which wasn't discovered until the first half of the 20th century.
So, Mendeleev did not say 'oh there will be an element with this many protons between this element and this element so that the table can be complete'. He saw that there were repeating series of properties that were periodic among the elements, and where he saw holes, he said 'there must be this element to complement these two elements so that the table can be complete'. When elements such as Germanium were discovered later on, with properties that Mendeleev predicted to fill his holes, the Periodic Table became canon, since the idea is that with the scientific method you can form a hypothesis and predict later results, and he did. Sub-atomic theory corroborating his theory didn't matter- people didn't know about the underlying things that caused the periodic behavior of the elements until way after the Periodic Table had become the law of the land.
Similarly, we didn't understand DNA until 100 years after the origin of species. We predicted that creatures would exist based on our understanding of the way that genetics, heredity and in the larger picture evolution worked, and we found creatures that fulfilled the properties we predicted, and the prediction-affirmed prediction (and more importantly, consistently confirmed predictions) affirmed the theory. DNA isn't necessary to prove that the gaps are filled in in our evolutionary chain just as subatomic theory wasn't necessary to prove that the gaps in Mendeleev's table were filled in.
-
You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as almost everything you've said has already been posited, and debunked.
2. We ARE apes...and as I (and others) have already stated: We did not evolve from modern apes/monkeys/chimps/etc. We evolved ALONGSIDE them. They branched off one way, we went another.
You are missing my point.. Where did we split off and what did we come from before we split... Evolution states that we come from simple organism that happened in a harmful environment at the right time to reproduce its offspring. Not did it stop there but continued to grow and eventually split off to form all living things...
It is easier to believe that we were created from the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man by a creator.
The best proof of that is to hold your new born baby..
None of look at are newborn son or daughter and say wow look at what random chance has gave.
If your theory was true we would actually have people being born with wings. Three eyes , too many feet, or numerous different changes. Some times extra limbs have happened. Usually as a result to radiation. It is not a result of evolution.
That baby is born through love... One of the best proof of creation.
Evolution states that it is all about survival of the fittest. If that were true people would not fall in love with each other. We would run around and try to reproduce with the fittest. It would be slam bang thank you Ma'm and that would be the end of that. Your children would be born raised by the mother who would only look after the the fittest. She would let the rest die. No remorse. Your offspring would grow up to do the same.
Love on the other hand, leads people together. They become friends. In due coarse, they decide to have children. These children are raised with values. They are taught manner and social conduct. In the end they grow up and start a relationship of their own.. This is all done through love not primordial instincts.
We want love. Evolution doesn't.
It takes more faith to believe that we came from random chance vs being created.
LtCondor
-
You are missing my point.. Where did we split off and what did we come from before we split... Evolution states that we come from simple organism that happened in a harmful environment at the right time to reproduce its offspring. Not did it stop there but continued to grow and eventually split off to form all living things...
If your theory was true we would actually have people being born with wings. Three eyes , too many feet, or numerous different changes. Some times extra limbs have happened. Usually as a result to radiation. It is not a result of evolution.
None of this is true. They are all lies someone told to you so that you would reject things that are very reasonable and easy to consolidate in your mind. Does that help?
That baby is born through love... One of the best proof of creation.
For sure you don't think that all babies are born from love? All of the products of rape and accidental pregnancy, every child that was born from the economic exchanges of prostitutes... I don't think all of them were born from love?
It is easier to believe that we were created from the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man by a creator.
It takes more faith to believe that we came from random chance vs being created.
So? It's easier to vegetate all day too, instead of going out and accomplishing things and contributing to society. Does that make it correct or fulfilling?
The easier of two things is very often or even generally the less desirable one
-
Gyrene never bathes and does not use toilet paper.
:lol you're giving up my secrets old man... :rofl
-
The majority are. That is what counts.
If you went by evolution stander-eds
that is how everything would work
-
The majority are. That is what counts.
If you went by evolution stander-eds
that is how everything would work
If a process has 70% product 1 and 30% product 2 you don't just say that the result is product 1, and you don't base your explanation of the process just off of the process that produces product 1. If you want to talk about science, that's not how it works. It's methodical
Actually, ignoring the minor products is exactly how you end up getting half credit on organic chemistry II exam problems, speaking of which.. :old:
A child is made when a sperm fertilizes an egg and the fetus manages to reach a point where it's capable of living asymbiotically. Sometimes the resulting child is loved and sometimes not, but the chemical processes that lead to its creation march on regardless.
-
Motherland, forget it, he's too far indoctrinated to break him loose. He's obviously made religion his center, and in such a manner that he has to reject scientific proof, else his view of the nature of existence would collapse.
-
If a process has 70% product 1 and 30% product 2 you don't just say that the result is product 1, and you don't base your explanation of the process just off of the process that produces product 1. If you want to talk about science, that's not how it works. It's methodical
Actually, ignoring the minor products is exactly how you end up getting half credit on organic chemistry II exam problems, speaking of which.. :old:
A child is made when a sperm fertilizes an egg and the fetus manages to reach a point where it's capable of living asymbiotically. Sometimes the resulting child is loved and sometimes not, but the chemical processes that lead to its creation march on regardless.
You are missing my point. Evolution is the act of trying to believe in Random Chance. Survival of the fittest.
The summary of evolution is this.It’s the survival of the fittest. It means that any animal or human that is stronger or smarter will be able to dominate the others and live longer. In turn, it will have more offspring, and it will pass its strengths on to following generations, if you give it enough years the animals will have improved a lot.
Now let’s contrast that idea to the belief of being created by a Creator. It is a belief in kindness. It urges us to love and care for the less privileged. It promotes a uniting love for all mankind as well as a high regard for nature.
-
There is no question, certainly to me, that we evolved from lesser hominids thru the process of natural selection and our ability to out think and out fight other hominid species. We are the ultimate Ape, tho not necessarily the greatest.
The only reason this is a religious conflict is because man in his arrogance "presumes" He knows Gods plan and the methods he choose to install to further it. Science and faith should be kept separate because the one we can understand but the other we never really will in this life. Only in the next. In the meanwhile we have to abide by the laws of God and keep faith in him. That doesnt mean ignoring scientific truths that are staring you in the face.
In the time of Jesus people thought sea life were mermaids and monsters. But that doesnt mean Jesus didnt live. God will clue us in in his own good time. In the mean time I'll keep current with science and keep my belief at the same time.
-
There is no question, certainly to me, that we evolved from lesser hominids thru the process of natural selection and our ability to out think and out fight other hominid species. We are the ultimate Ape, tho not necessarily the greatest.
The only reason this is a religious conflict is because man in his arrogance "presumes" He knows Gods plan and the methods he choose to install to further it. Science and faith should be kept separate because the one we can understand but the other we never really will in this life. Only in the next. In the meanwhile we have to abide by the laws of God and keep faith in him. That doesnt mean ignoring scientific truths that are staring you in the face.
In the time of Jesus people thought sea life were mermaids and monsters. But that doesnt mean Jesus didnt live. God will clue us in in his own good time. In the mean time I'll keep current with science and keep my belief at the same time.
Well said
-
Well said
Except you follow a doctrine about the exact opposite of his.
You let your faith blind you to the truth, simply because that truth isn't written in the book you've decided is literal truth, even after thousands of years of copying and translation errors, much less that its obviously allegorical.
-
You are missing my point. Evolution is the act of trying to believe in Random Chance. Survival of the fittest.
The summary of evolution is this.It’s the survival of the fittest. It means that any animal or human that is stronger or smarter will be able to dominate the others and live longer. In turn, it will have more offspring, and it will pass its strengths on to following generations, if you give it enough years the animals will have improved a lot.
First of all, 'random chance' and 'survival of the fittest' are contradictory.
Second of all, the theory of evolution does not say that anything has to happen. It describes things that do happen. There were people about a century ago who falsely extrapolated the ideas of evolution and the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. They're not around anymore. The idea of 'directing human evolution' is not around anymore. People figured out before Hitler even came to power that eugenics was based on false premises.
'Survival of the fittest' is an archaic phrase. Genetics and natural selection are more complicated than that. The Origin of Species was written 150 years ago. Science has matured since then.
The idea of a scientist as someone who just sits down and does things by numbers and doesn't appreciate life and the human experience is also archaic, if it was aver based on much to begin with. Maybe for mathematicians or physicists this is a bit more the case (though this really hasn't been my experience necessarily either), but being constantly surrounded by biologists and chemists etc. who love art and literature and everything about life. And the discreet parts of life that operate under your nose, without you being able to see, are some of the most beautiful parts.
By the way, the mutations that lead to evolution are actually very slight and are actually often caused by background radiation.
-
I have read and understood the replies directed at my posts. While I stick firm to my beliefs I lack the desire to debate it further.
Perspective is everything. That is why we all see things differently.
-
Nothing is impossible. It's merely a matter of (im)probilities. Having said that, I'm more inclined towards evolution, assisted or not, as being more probable than us having a creator who pulls everything out of his wazoo. But hey, it's not impossible that our little corner of the universe might indeed have a god or gods.
:old:
For those who can positively say there is no Creator.......
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-
Why do dogs Dream? :headscratch:
-
There is no question, certainly to me, that we evolved from lesser hominids thru the process of natural selection and our ability to out think and out fight other hominid species. We are the ultimate Ape, tho not necessarily the greatest.
The only reason this is a religious conflict is because man in his arrogance "presumes" He knows Gods plan and the methods he choose to install to further it. Science and faith should be kept separate because the one we can understand but the other we never really will in this life. Only in the next. In the meanwhile we have to abide by the laws of God and keep faith in him. That doesnt mean ignoring scientific truths that are staring you in the face.
In the time of Jesus people thought sea life were mermaids and monsters. But that doesnt mean Jesus didnt live. God will clue us in in his own good time. In the mean time I'll keep current with science and keep my belief at the same time.
Well said.
-
Why do dogs Dream? :headscratch:
Dreaming might help the neural network of the brain incorporate memories better ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_learning ).
Also, some research points to sleep as a time were repair and maintenance functions can proceed more thoroughly ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/373 ).
-
When Mendeleev created the periodic table in the mid-19th century, there were many holes in it that could not be explained at the time (there of course were still many undiscovered elements). Of course, this wasn't based on any kind of the sub atomic theory we now know is responsible for the properties of the elements, which wasn't discovered until the first half of the 20th century.
So, Mendeleev did not say 'oh there will be an element with this many protons between this element and this element so that the table can be complete'. He saw that there were repeating series of properties that were periodic among the elements, and where he saw holes, he said 'there must be this element to complement these two elements so that the table can be complete'. When elements such as Germanium were discovered later on, with properties that Mendeleev predicted to fill his holes, the Periodic Table became canon, since the idea is that with the scientific method you can form a hypothesis and predict later results, and he did. Sub-atomic theory corroborating his theory didn't matter- people didn't know about the underlying things that caused the periodic behavior of the elements until way after the Periodic Table had become the law of the land.
Similarly, we didn't understand DNA until 100 years after the origin of species. We predicted that creatures would exist based on our understanding of the way that genetics, heredity and in the larger picture evolution worked, and we found creatures that fulfilled the properties we predicted, and the prediction-affirmed prediction (and more importantly, consistently confirmed predictions) affirmed the theory. DNA isn't necessary to prove that the gaps are filled in in our evolutionary chain just as subatomic theory wasn't necessary to prove that the gaps in Mendeleev's table were filled in.
the prediction of base elements is an easier exercise in logic than the evolution of a species. the number of variables is finite unlike the variables of the evolutionary process. the creatures you think fulfill the predicted properties needed to explain human evolution haven't actually materialized. there has been a lot of generous extrapolation to fill in the picture due to the lack of full fledged evidence. a single jaw bone or finger bone does not make a species nor does it show the evolution of that species to its end point. the amount of pure conjecture that has been used (and readily accepted) to explain the evolution of humans is astounding. if someone were to walk up to you with a few fossilized remnants of a creature the size of a muskrat, of which no other remains have been found anywhere on the planet, and told you that it was the direct ancestor of a horse, i would hope that you would be skeptical, because that is exactly what has been happening yet i don't sense any skeptcism from you.
Nothing is impossible. It's merely a matter of (im)probilities. Having said that, I'm more inclined towards evolution, assisted or not, as being more probable than us having a creator who pulls everything out of his wazoo. But hey, it's not impossible that our little corner of the universe might indeed have a god or gods.
:old:
assisted evolution (in some manner) is highly probable...and based on what is now known about ancient civilizations as well as evidence found across the planet, god could very well be many.
-
Evolution and Creation are both likely to be real. Just not exactly like they are believed to have happened.
To think that all of the incredible complexities that make up living beings, their interaction with different living beings and our own history of thinking, building and creating - is all just because of a totally random series of events and not the work of some higher power, seems impossible to me.
And despite the similarities with apes, if humans evolved from them, why are apes still around?
Some things will never and can never be proved, nor disproved.
-
And despite the similarities with apes, if humans evolved from them, why are apes still around?
They didn't, and
why not?
-
Why do dogs Dream? :headscratch:
After being neutered what else are you going to do? I imagine Midway dreams for the same reason.
-
They didn't, and
why not?
I don't believe we did. Just putting the theory to the test.
If evolving is improving out of necessity or for some natural advantage, then how come the inferior species A. didn't evolve and B. still exists? Survival of the fittest doesn't seem to always apply if we did come from them. Just a bunch of conjecture that's presented as facts. Nobody alive knows for sure and never will.
-
They didn't, and
why not?
To clarify what Lusche is saying: Humans didn't involve from gorillas, or chimpanzees, or orangutangs. They evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR of those groups, and were a different branch on the same evolutionary path.
As Scholz posted, evolution is NOT:
A > B > C > D
It's more like:
1885 ----------- 1955 ----------- 1985
\
\___________1985A
Great Apes still exist because humans did NOT evolve from them, but evolved ALONGSIDE them after an earlier split further in the past.
-
I don't believe we did. Just putting the theory to the test.
If evolving is improving out of necessity or for some natural advantage, then how come the inferior species A. didn't evolve and B. still exists? Survival of the fittest doesn't seem to always apply if we did come from them.
You're right, that doesn't make sense. But that's not how evolution works. That's a lie someone told you so that you wouldn't understand evolution and just give up on it.
Also, there's no such thing as an inferior species, there are just species specialized for different environments.
the prediction of base elements is an easier exercise in logic than the evolution of a species. the number of variables is finite unlike the variables of the evolutionary process.
Maybe in hindsight, maybe with the complete periodic table. But with a very incomplete table? At a time when no one even considered it?
Especially when we had practically no idea the structure of matter at time. There certainly was no finite number of variables, because people didn't even know that the elements were governed by anything. In fact, I would say that it was even less obvious than evolution- which can be exemplified by the fact that Mendeleev's first periodic table was published a full 10 years after Darwin's Origin of Species.
there has been a lot of generous extrapolation to fill in the picture due to the lack of full fledged evidence. a single jaw bone or finger bone does not make a species nor does it show the evolution of that species to its end point. the amount of pure conjecture that has been used (and readily accepted) to explain the evolution of humans is astounding.
There are full skeletons, and lots of full skulls that show predicted properties of pre-homo sapiens species at various points throughout the past four million years or so, so I'm not sure what point your point actually is here. We don't just have 'jaw bones and finger bones', of 'random isolated animals' but you can pretend that if it fits in better with your world view. There is quite a big fossil record for Australopithecus, just for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
-
Also, keep in mind that there's a LOT that experts can tell from a piece of jaw bone or finger bone by comparing it to similar species to be able to extrapolate a guess about the complete animal with a reasonable margin for error.
Megalodon is a good example of this: The only parts that are preserved tend to be the jaws and teeth, but the structure is sufficiently of those remains is sufficiently similar to the modern Great White, that it's generally safe to reconstruct it with a similar body plan.
-
There are full skeletons, and lots of full skulls that show predicted properties of pre-homo sapiens so I'm not sure what point your point actually is here. We don't just have 'jaw bones and finger bones', but you can pretend that if it fits in better with your world view. There is a pretty big fossil record for Australopithecus for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
that is where you're wrong...you should read your own reference.
Sahelanthropus
Existing fossils include a relatively small cranium, five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features.
Orrorin
The 20 specimens found as of 2007 include: the posterior part of a mandible in two pieces; a symphysis and several isolated teeth; three fragments of femora; a partial humerus; a proximal phalanx; and a distal thumb phalanx.
Ardipithecus
It is still a matter of debate what was the relation of this genus to human ancestors, and whether it is a hominin, or not.
In 1992–1993 a research team headed by Tim White discovered the first A. ramidus fossils—seventeen fragments including skull, mandible, teeth and arm bones—from the Afar Depression in the Middle Awash river valley of Ethiopia. More fragments were recovered in 1994, amounting to 45% of the total skeleton.
Laetoli
Although much debated upon, it has been determined that Australopithecus afarensis is the species of the three hominins who made the footprints at Laetoli. This conclusion is based on the reconstruction of the foot skeleton of a female A. afrarensis hominin by anthropologists Tim White and Gen Suwa of the University of California.
amazing what can be extrapolated by some fossilized footprints when even footprints of supposed sasquatch in fresh soil are claimed to be nonsense...
LH 4 or Laetoli Hominid 4[1] is the catalogue number of a fossilized mandible which was discovered by Mary Leakey in 1974 from Laetoli, Tanzania
in modern science genetic anomalies among modern humans are not classified as separate species but fossils of what could be nothing more than genetic anomalies are...excellent science.
-
that is where you're wrong...you should read your own reference.
Sahelanthropus
Orrorin
Ardipithecus
Laetoliamazing what can be extrapolated by some fossilized footprints when even footprints of supposed sasquatch in fresh soil are claimed to be nonsense...
in modern science genetic anomalies among modern humans are not classified as separate species but fossils of what could be nothing more than genetic anomalies are...excellent science.
our skeletons are symmetrical down our spines, there is a lot of other stuff that can be filled in or is largely inconsequential. It's not like this kind of stuff isn't savagely picked apart when it's found.
if you don't find something like this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Peking_Man_Skull_%28replica%29_presented_at_Paleozoological_Museum_of_China.jpg)
or this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Turkana_Boy.jpg)
or this "fragment of a jaw"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Australopithecus_africanus_-_Cast_of_taung_child_Face.jpg)
significant then you will never accept anything, even if the past 4 million years are flashed past you and you get to watch human evolution in person
-
Where's all the funny "you know you're a redneck if..." pictures?
-
Perhaps some day we will evolve to the point we quit arguing over things none of "us" can prove with absolute certainty and just respect others beliefs.
I know, that would be a big leap :bolt:
-
animals dont evolve. they live and die. Change happens through reproduction. Then the newborn lives and dies. This is evolution. If you want some changes. Isolate a population, apply a constant pressure that challenges the ability to survive. Wait about 1000 generations. For a human this would be about 18,000 years. and check back and see how different the species is. You will not find a missing link. all you will see is a new species.
Anyone ever look inside another mammal? or reptile? or fish? All the parts are almost the exact same as ours. This is a big clue to me that we are all related. Surly if there was a grand creator he was quite dull and lazy.
-
Finding the actual fossil remains of a "transitional form" is immensely improbable; they exist for such a short time. We are lucky to find a single piece of a fossil of a species at some point during its entire existence. Nature is very efficient in destroying any trace of a being's existence. Finding a transitional form would be like finding the wreck of a 109F prototype, one of the transitional forms between 109E and 109F, only on an almost incomprehensible order of magnitude more difficult.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5ovSpS2GU#t=37
(http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/ss_size1/E-Evolve.png)
(http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/E-Science.png)
-
same way i would explain the existence of the platypus...there is a reason they don't exist all over the planet. when you find a way for inter species mating to work, you will have your monkey man. pretty sure you could find a couple of volunteers in these forums that want to try some monkey tail...
What's wrong with the Platypus?
Interspecies mating does work in a few cases where the two species are closely related. Like with horses and donkeys for example. However the offspring is not always fertile (like the mule hybrid for example).
-
What's wrong with the Platypus?
Interspecies mating does work in a few cases where the two species are closely related. Like with horses and donkeys for example. However the offspring is not always fertile (like the mule hybrid for example).
You also have interbreeding between H. neanderthalensis and modern H. sapiens which, considering modern humans still possess Neanderthal genetic material, DID lead to fertile offspring.
-
How can people believe intelligent design caused Evolution? :headscratch:
(http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h176/goldentoby/wright-lg.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/goldentoby/media/wright-lg.jpg.html)(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f51/savvyamigo/biplane.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/savvyamigo/media/biplane.jpg.html)(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab53/photorew1957/_REW4810.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/photorew1957/media/_REW4810.jpg.html)(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn99/GIRrocks24/F-86_1.png) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/GIRrocks24/media/F-86_1.png.html)(http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq20/Astr0s23/f-14.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Astr0s23/media/f-14.jpg.html)(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/bmacksurf/f-22.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/bmacksurf/media/f-22.jpg.html)
-
I don't think belief in science and having religious faith have to be mutually exclusive. :angel: :angel:
-
I doesn't. I know several scientists who are Muslims...
-
I don't think belief in science and having religious faith have to be mutually exclusive. :angel: :angel:
absolutely agree...just take care not to say that near any extremists on either side.
You also have interbreeding between H. neanderthalensis and modern H. sapiens which, considering modern humans still possess Neanderthal genetic material, DID lead to fertile offspring.
you might want to look at that research again. the existence of some parts of neanderthal virus dna in some populations does not prove intermingling. current research shows that neanderthals and modern humans did not actually intermingle but a distant ancestor to modern humans may have.
-
I doesn't. I know several scientists who are Muslims...
Also, the RCC rejects young-earth creationism & accepts evolution as fact.
Francis Collins (headed the Human Genome Project & currently the Director of the NIH) is a devout Christian. He also rejects ID as being "not scientifically tenable" and correctly identifies it as what is essentially a god of the gaps issue. From his PBS interview with Tucker Carlson:
Collins: I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. Well, you know, we haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.
Carlson: Does evolution even imply that there's no god?
Collins: Of course not. Evolution, although it's called a theory, in science a theory is a collection of observations that are pulled together into a consistent view of things. Electromagnetic theory, for instance. It doesn't mean it's still hypothetical and people don't think it's right. Biology makes almost no sense without evolution to undergird it. Saying as the opening statement did evolution is a theory, not a fact, that's not really quite an adequate explanation of the solidity of information we have
(EDIT: Link to the full transcript of the interview - http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm)
Point being: There's no reason one can't believe in a creator/deity and still accept the fact that evolution happened/happens/is happening.
you might want to look at that research again. the existence of some parts of neanderthal virus dna in some populations does not prove intermingling. current research shows that neanderthals and modern humans did not actually intermingle but a distant ancestor to modern humans may have.
This is not my current understanding, but it's always possible that I'm behind on the topic. Do you have a link to the study/studies that show this?
-
This is not my current understanding, but it's always possible that I'm behind on the topic. Do you have a link to the study/studies that show this?
sure...
neanderthal virus dna in modern humans...i think this is fairly current
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24598-neanderthal-virus-dna-spotted-hiding-in-modern-humans.html#.UozaVOLNkYI (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24598-neanderthal-virus-dna-spotted-hiding-in-modern-humans.html#.UozaVOLNkYI)
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/neanderthal-mitochondrial-dna (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/neanderthal-mitochondrial-dna)
-
Finding the actual fossil remains of a "transitional form" is immensely improbable; they exist for such a short time. We are lucky to find a single piece of a fossil of a species at some point during its entire existence. Nature is very efficient in destroying any trace of a being's existence. Finding a transitional form would be like finding the wreck of a 109F prototype, one of the transitional forms between 109E and 109F, only on an almost incomprehensible order of magnitude more difficult.
Well, every form is a transitional form between what came before and what came, or will come, after. Forms may be relatively static for extended periods if there is no evolutionary pressure, but they are still transitional forms.
The whole concept and demand arises from misunderstandings.
-
Indeed, but there are so-called "transitional forms" in brief periods of time where evolutionary pressure is great. As the lifeform adapts to this evolutionary pressure the pressure subsides and the lifeform will undergo little change as long as its living conditions doesn't change much. This creates brief periods of time when a creature struggles to adapt and survive followed by a long time of relatively stable/uniform development.
-
Indeed, but there are so-called "transitional forms" in brief periods of time where evolutionary pressure is great. As the lifeform adapts to this evolutionary pressure the pressure subsides and the lifeform will undergo little change as long as its living conditions doesn't change much. This creates brief periods of time when a creature struggles to adapt and survive followed by a long time of relatively stable/uniform development.
When you combine that with the VERY specific conditions you need for even the potential of a fossil being formed, it's no wonder such transitional fossils are so rare considering the incompleteness of the record itself. New species are being discovered all the time, but it's still a matter of pure luck to even find A fossil, much less something as significant as a transitional form.
-
our skeletons are symmetrical down our spines, there is a lot of other stuff that can be filled in or is largely inconsequential. It's not like this kind of stuff isn't savagely picked apart when it's found.
if you don't find something like this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Peking_Man_Skull_%28replica%29_presented_at_Paleozoological_Museum_of_China.jpg)
or this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Turkana_Boy.jpg)
or this "fragment of a jaw"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Australopithecus_africanus_-_Cast_of_taung_child_Face.jpg)
significant then you will never accept anything, even if the past 4 million years are flashed past you and you get to watch human evolution in person
do you remember the iguanodon? the original discovery was a few fossilized teeth. after many subsequent discoveries of many complete fossilized skeletons, it was eventually discovered that the iguanodon was not a species but a genus...eventually. in the case of early hominids, speculation is largely based on skeletal fragments.
such as quoted by a researcher in reference to findings in the republic of georgia... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/science/fossil-skull-may-rewrite-humans-evolutionary-story.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/science/fossil-skull-may-rewrite-humans-evolutionary-story.html?_r=0)
“Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species,” a co-author of the journal report, Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, said in a statement. Such was often the practice of researchers, using variations in traits to define new species.
yet in the same article, the same researcher passes more conjecture based on partial remains...
Although the Dmanisi finds look quite different from one another, Dr. Zollikofer said, the hominids who left them were living at the same time and place, and “so could, in principle, represent a single population of a single species.” He and his Zurich colleague, Marcia Ponce de León, conducted the comparative analysis of the Dmanisi specimens.
the key is, could represent, not absolutely represents and to not keep that in mind when it comes to evolutionary research is just as faulty as the reasoning behind faith based religions.
-
the key is, could represent, not absolutely represents and to not keep that in mind when it comes to evolutionary research is just as faulty as the reasoning behind faith based religions.
When they find God's jawbone or a fossilized angel, I'll agree to that... :aok
-
When they find God's jawbone or a fossilized angel, I'll agree to that... :aok
liar, no you wouldn't...you would be one of the first in line to try debunking it, even if it fell out of an alien spacecraft hovering over your house.
-
Take me with you!!!
-
you sir need to seek assistance with your mental health... :rofl
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3sm279DdH1r09nq4o1_400.gif)
(http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/06/evolution-52948.gif)
(http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/comics-bogleech-legs-653870.png)
-
the key is, could represent, not absolutely represents and to not keep that in mind when it comes to evolutionary research is just as faulty as the reasoning behind faith based religions.
LOL. No.
Fossils are a minor sideshow as far as evolutionary evidence and research goes. They look impressive in museums so they get grossly disproportionate press coverage, but the focus is absolutely genetic now. DNA and RNA tell us much more than fossils can.
Edit:
An article relevant to this thread:
Genome analysis suggests interbreeding between modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and a mysterious archaic population. (http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-rampant-sex-lives-1.14196)
-
LOL. No.
Fossils are a minor sideshow as far as evolutionary evidence and research goes. They look impressive in museums so they get grossly disproportionate press coverage, but the focus is absolutely genetic now. DNA and RNA tell us much more than fossils can.
Edit:
An article relevant to this thread:
Genome analysis suggests interbreeding between modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and a mysterious archaic population. (http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-rampant-sex-lives-1.14196)
lol, yes...fossils are still used to make claims of direct modern human ancestry and you can't get dna or rna from a fully fossilized specimen.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326)
trying to make claims of absolution when it comes to the evolutionary record of modern humans is rather dumb. the story behind the denisovans and their relationship to modern humans is rife with theory and conjecture. "could have", "may have", "alternatively", etc... more so than the theories of neanderthals 40 years ago. and remember all of the conjecture surrounding cro-magnon man which is now classified as early modern human.
-
I don't think belief in science and having religious faith have to be mutually exclusive. :angel: :angel:
I think that depends...
If the belief is that a "Supreme Being" has created life, and in particular that the SB has created man "in his own image", then a belief in science (i.e. evolution) is problematic.
The idea that a created man would be able to evolve into something better / smarter / more capable / more suited to "whatever" would mean that the created man has "improved".
That improvement would seem to elevate the "created in his own image, but evolved, man" to a position somehow better than "in his own image", and therefore better than the "Supreme Being"?
-
Although I didn't major or minor in anthropology or archaeology in school, I loved it and took a TON of classes as electives. My brother is an archaeologist, currently working in Washington state (Seattle area), having made his way through Wisconsin, Nebraska, Colorado, and eastern Washington along the way.
One thing that amazed me in college was that most of what I'd learned about the evolution of man in high school just a few years earlier was "old and outdated" information. Through the years, as I've kept tabs here and there it's amazing to learn that what I'd learned in college is also now "old and outdated" information. It's exciting to see how quickly science can progress.
Darwin's theory has even evolved a bit; "survival of the reproductively fittest" is a subtle but important distinction. It doesn't matter how ideal the specimen is, if it doesn't breed and produce offspring that also live long enough to breed and produce offspring.
When it comes to finding fossils, I found this to be an intriguing and exciting presentation- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHpEmD-95CQ
It's amazing to me too how good people can get at making finds. I remember (on an antelope hunt) rolling down a dirt road at @45mph with my brother, in a part of Wyoming where neither of us had ever set foot. In mid-conversation, my brother quickly craned his head around to look at something as we drove past. When I asked (thinking he'd spotted an antelope) he responded along the lines of "the road blasts right through an archaeological site right there". Sure enough, a few days later we were in the same area and pulled over to find several stone points and evidence of knapping in the area. The crew that built the road likely never knew...
On another hunt, we filled our tags early and my brother asked if I felt like looking for a site or two in the area (again, somewhere neither of us had ever been). I said sure, and asked what he had in mind, thinking we'd be examining some maps or something before going on what would likely amount to a wild goose chase. He responded "just take a look over the valley, along where you could see the river used to be several hundred years prior. Imagine a spot where you'd want to set up a camp, based on the terrain, and we''l go see if there's an old site there." Yup, we drove as close as we could get, then hopped out and walked the rest of the way in to find old "tipi rings" several broken stone points, and various debitage. The stone points and debitage were interesting too, because although we were in Colorado the stone was from the NW coast.
-
lol, yes...fossils are still used to make claims of direct modern human ancestry and you can't get dna or rna from a fully fossilized specimen.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326)
trying to make claims of absolution when it comes to the evolutionary record of modern humans is rather dumb. the story behind the denisovans and their relationship to modern humans is rife with theory and conjecture. "could have", "may have", "alternatively", etc... more so than the theories of neanderthals 40 years ago. and remember all of the conjecture surrounding cro-magnon man which is now classified as early modern human.
It is interesting that you seem to think the fluidity of scientific theories is a weakness or that it is indicative of vacillation when it is actually science's strength that it discards what has been disproven without sentimentality.
-
I think that depends...
If the belief is that a "Supreme Being" has created life, and in particular that the SB has created man "in his own image", then a belief in science (i.e. evolution) is problematic.
The idea that a created man would be able to evolve into something better / smarter / more capable / more suited to "whatever" would mean that the created man has "improved".
That improvement would seem to elevate the "created in his own image, but evolved, man" to a position somehow better than "in his own image", and therefore better than the "Supreme Being"?
I don't think that's really an important inconsistency. Genetic material changes from generation to generation and slowly drifts just due to imperfections/quirks in the mechanics of DNA and DNA replication, that's something inherent, observed and undeniable whether or not you choose to logically apply that observation to large scale changes over billions of years.
If God had created man in his image 6,000 years ago we are just as different from Adam and Eve as we are from the non-Christian version of humanity that existed 6,000 years ago. It's not possible that we are exactly the same, because if there was a moment of creation, that creation included the (certainly highly impressive, but none the less) fairly flawed methods of reproduction and replication that directly observable.
If you choose to believe that populations remain static over many generations then you have simply closed your eyes to the world.
I think it's always important to keep in mind that nothing gets 'better' in any objective way, just different, in ways that are generally more suited toward the environment. Of course science never considers anything better than anything else, just different, and that applies just as much to evolutionary biology as sociology or linguistics.
There are surely features of religions which make them incompatible with the scientific view of history, but I don't think that evolution is one of them (hopefully it's not because drifts in the genotypes of populations happen observably and that's just not disputable).
The problem with the Adam and Eve story of Genesis for example is not necessarily problematic from a standpoint of the mechanisms of evolution, but just from the standpoint that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. If you suppose that Eden physically existed, but 4.5 billion years ago, we should really expect that modern humans are far different from Adam and Eve, but again I don't think that necessarily is contradictory with Christianity, just the image we were created in had to change along with the world in which we existed, as humans don't live in the heavens with God.
Humans were created in God's image but were not exact replicas of God. It follows that we're imperfect. If you want to suppose that humans were created perfectly then that's kind of silly as we, like other organisms, are pretty overcomplicated, Rube-Goldberg-like, inefficient machines.
I don't necessarily believe that there is no God but I certainly don't believe that humans and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. None the less, evolution and even abiogenesis isn't really incompatible with the idea of an original creator of the universe.
-
I don't think that's really an important inconsistency. Genetic material changes from generation to generation and slowly drifts just due to imperfections/quirks in the mechanics of DNA and DNA replication, that's something inherent, observed and undeniable whether or not you choose to logically apply that observation to large scale changes over billions of years.
If God had created man in his image 6,000 years ago we are just as different from Adam and Eve as we are from the non-Christian version of humanity that existed 6,000 years ago. It's not possible that we are exactly the same, because if there was a moment of creation, that creation included the (certainly highly impressive, but none the less) fairly flawed methods of reproduction and replication that directly observable.
If you choose to believe that populations remain static over many generations then you have simply closed your eyes to the world.
I think it's always important to keep in mind that nothing gets 'better' in any objective way, just different, in ways that are generally more suited toward the environment. Of course science never considers anything better than anything else, just different, and that applies just as much to evolutionary biology as sociology or linguistics.
There are surely features of religions which make them incompatible with the scientific view of history, but I don't think that evolution is one of them (hopefully it's not because drifts in the genotypes of populations happen observably and that's just not disputable).
The problem with the Adam and Eve story of Genesis for example is not necessarily problematic from a standpoint of the mechanisms of evolution, but just from the standpoint that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. If you suppose that Eden physically existed, but 4.5 billion years ago, we should really expect that modern humans are far different from Adam and Eve, but again I don't think that necessarily is contradictory with Christianity, just the image we were created in had to change along with the world in which we existed, as humans don't live in the heavens with God.
Humans were created in God's image but were not exact replicas of God. It follows that we're imperfect. If you want to suppose that humans were created perfectly then that's kind of silly as we, like other organisms, are pretty overcomplicated, Rube-Goldberg-like, inefficient machines.
I don't necessarily believe that there is no God but I certainly don't believe that humans and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. None the less, evolution and even abiogenesis isn't really incompatible with the idea of an original creator of the universe.
Again, it depends...
I chose to use "Supreme Being" rather than "creator" for just that reason.
If we go with "creator", we could argue that the creator was less-than-perfect (i.e. flawed in some fashion), and therefore could be expected to create a less-than-perfect man. A man that might actually NEED to change to match his changing environment.
However, if we use the "Supreme Being" instead, and argued that he/it was flawless, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-whatever, then his creation must therefore also be perfect (or at least created exactly as he/it desired) and therefore immune to the need to change.
Mind you, I don't believe in a "creator of the universe" (but could potentially be swayed in the presence of convincing evidence?). I'd sooner believe that we're not alone, and that we may very well be the result of some form of scientific "alien tinkering". Maybe just a big science project? Heck, who knows. I "believed" as a child, but then went through the process of catechism, confirmation, etc, and as I payed more and more attention to what I was being taught it became less and less possible for me to believe in what I was being taught.
Sitting through my early man, anthropology and archaeology courses, I'll also have to admit that I don't think we quite have that "dialed in" either, but I find it to be closer to the truth.
I consider humans to be simply "fortunate, smart animals", but different enough from the rest of the animal kingdom to raise suspicion that "something might not be just as it appears".
The interaction of animals with people (in a predator/prey relationship) raises some questions in my mind too, that aren't explained to my satisfaction through creation, or evolution.
-
My brother is an archaeologist, currently working in Washington state (Seattle area),
If you are ever visiting him, send me a PM, and I'll take the two of you out for a beer.
-
If you are ever visiting him, send me a PM, and I'll take the two of you out for a beer.
Nothing like partying archeologists. :D
(http://www.natashalarrybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/marion-can-hold-her-liquor.png)
(Actually, I'd love to be a part of that beer meet-up.)
-
If you are ever visiting him, send me a PM, and I'll take the two of you out for a beer.
Sounds great!
-
For a troll-thread this thread actually turned out pretty good! Wpeters must be the worst troll in the history of the internet!
-
interesting thing to think about. If time since the big bang is one yard. Life has been on earth around for a foot of that time. therefore relative to time, life has been around a good portion it. humans, not so much. one could think the seed for life was present early in the creation, or life is a natural occurrence in nature, or who the hell cares my rent is due next week.
-
Interestingly, there's a lot of evidence being gathered that Mars developed a habitable environment long before earth did (earth spent a significant amount of time as a molten ball of sludge thanks to the Giant Impact that created the Moon), and there's currently speculation that life originated there and hitched a ride to earth on meteorites ejected from Mars after asteroid impacts. That's a bit of a fringe hypothesis at the moment, and there's some question on whether there's any extremophiles that could actually survive: Heat of impact from the asteroid which blasted it into space, the long trip through vacuum to earth, and then the energy of impact as the rock it's riding on smacks into earth.
-
It would have to ride inside the rock though for obvious reasons, and in a frozen state. Scientists warn people not to touch meteorites that have just impacted Earth, not because they may be hot, but because they're usually still extremely cold. If the microbe survives a deep freeze (and there are some that do here on Earth) the frozen matter around them and their own frozen solid state would protect them from the energy of the impact as long as the meteorite doesn't shatter.
-
Yeah, I meant that it was traveling on/inside the rock.
Did you see that article about the Russian scientists who successfully grew a flower from seeds that were buried in permafrost 30,000 years ago?
Life is amazingly resilient, when you get right down to it.
-
I don't think that's really an important inconsistency. Genetic material changes from generation to generation and slowly drifts just due to imperfections/quirks in the mechanics of DNA and DNA replication, that's something inherent, observed and undeniable whether or not you choose to logically apply that observation to large scale changes over billions of years.
If God had created man in his image 6,000 years ago we are just as different from Adam and Eve as we are from the non-Christian version of humanity that existed 6,000 years ago. It's not possible that we are exactly the same, because if there was a moment of creation, that creation included the (certainly highly impressive, but none the less) fairly flawed methods of reproduction and replication that directly observable.
If you choose to believe that populations remain static over many generations then you have simply closed your eyes to the world.
I think it's always important to keep in mind that nothing gets 'better' in any objective way, just different, in ways that are generally more suited toward the environment. Of course science never considers anything better than anything else, just different, and that applies just as much to evolutionary biology as sociology or linguistics.
There are surely features of religions which make them incompatible with the scientific view of history, but I don't think that evolution is one of them (hopefully it's not because drifts in the genotypes of populations happen observably and that's just not disputable).
The problem with the Adam and Eve story of Genesis for example is not necessarily problematic from a standpoint of the mechanisms of evolution, but just from the standpoint that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. If you suppose that Eden physically existed, but 4.5 billion years ago, we should really expect that modern humans are far different from Adam and Eve, but again I don't think that necessarily is contradictory with Christianity, just the image we were created in had to change along with the world in which we existed, as humans don't live in the heavens with God.
Humans were created in God's image but were not exact replicas of God. It follows that we're imperfect. If you want to suppose that humans were created perfectly then that's kind of silly as we, like other organisms, are pretty overcomplicated, Rube-Goldberg-like, inefficient machines.
I don't necessarily believe that there is no God but I certainly don't believe that humans and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. None the less, evolution and even abiogenesis isn't really incompatible with the idea of an original creator of the universe.
very interesting thoughts. :salute i'm not far off that line of thinking myself.
the genesis story reads like a being came to earth and did something to give ancient people a level of consciousness that didn't exist before. considering the evidence of human evolution and the probability of multiple lines of origin from hominids to where we are now, i think it is possible that at some point in our history between the time of learning how to control fire and the building of the first communities, something happened to make the idea of a god or gods more than just superstitious tales to control the masses.
-
Funny how scientists ponder theories about a multiverse and string theory but never will consider a Being that exists on a different plane of existence from our "Physical world".
So many wish to bury their thoughts on what they can see or touch. How does stress (mental) make some people exhibit (physical) damage to their bodies? Should not the Heart keep on pumping as a usual natural function? Why do Presidents turn gray after 4 years in office? Should not hair turn gray at an evolutionary pace? Medicine is finally realizing the relation to health with positive thinking.
There are things beyond the Physical you need to take into account to get the whole picture of life.
My Mom and I are close and we used to play a game where she would go into a room and concentrate on an object. Then she would leave the room and I would go in and tell her what she was focused on correctly. Not exactly a scientific experiment but interesting non the less. (and we could duplicate it though not every time)
My wife visited her Mother in the hospital who was very sick and she left to go home. As she was halfway home and had "a funny feeling". She said we have to go back something has happened. Well her Mother had passed at the very time she had the "feeling".
Coincidence of course you would say? Is psychic ability a natural process? Don't get me started on Ghost stories. :uhoh
-
funny thing about intelligent design is the basic foundation of it. Eden you think by now we would have found it thru Google earth.
do I believe it yes, that's why its called faith.
semp
-
I prefer a different word to describe it: Indoctrination.
-
I prefer a different word to describe it: Indoctrination.
won't that apply to both intelligent design and evolution?
semp
-
Funny how scientists ponder theories about a multiverse and string theory but never will consider a Being that exists on a different plane of existence from our "Physical world".
So many wish to bury their thoughts on what they can see or touch. How does stress (mental) make some people exhibit (physical) damage to their bodies? Should not the Heart keep on pumping as a usual natural function? Why do Presidents turn gray after 4 years in office? Should not hair turn gray at an evolutionary pace? Medicine is finally realizing the relation to health with positive thinking.
There are things beyond the Physical you need to take into account to get the whole picture of life.
My Mom and I are close and we used to play a game where she would go into a room and concentrate on an object. Then she would leave the room and I would go in and tell her what she was focused on correctly. Not exactly a scientific experiment but interesting non the less. (and we could duplicate it though not every time)
My wife visited her Mother in the hospital who was very sick and she left to go home. As she was halfway home and had "a funny feeling". She said we have to go back something has happened. Well her Mother had passed at the very time she had the "feeling".
Coincidence of course you would say? Is psychic ability a natural process? Don't get me started on Ghost stories. :uhoh
Science has proven that theres more at work than we previously expected. IIRC, humans looking at random images will respond to images of pain and violence before the image is actually shown. When picking between two hidden images with one of them occasionally showing sex or acts relating to sex, we're 2% more likely to pick that image. Not huge, but still statistically significant.
-
Funny how scientists ponder theories about a multiverse and string theory but never will consider a Being that exists on a different plane of existence from our "Physical world".
So many wish to bury their thoughts on what they can see or touch. How does stress (mental) make some people exhibit (physical) damage to their bodies? Should not the Heart keep on pumping as a usual natural function? Why do Presidents turn gray after 4 years in office? Should not hair turn gray at an evolutionary pace? Medicine is finally realizing the relation to health with positive thinking.
There are things beyond the Physical you need to take into account to get the whole picture of life.
Why do you think any of this is in contradiction with science? There's literature and ongoing research about how psychological stress affects the human body. It's not like anyone pretends the brain isn't real or anything. Consolidating hard-biology and psychology through neuroscience is probably one of the more interesting and active frontiers of scientific research today in fact.
Why do you think scientists will 'never consider a Being that exists on a different plane of existence'?
No one is going to argue for it, because you can't, there's not a body of hard data, only inconsistencies in our current understanding of the universe at best, but that doesn't mean that no one believes in it.
No scientist will ever say 'oh God did it we can stop wondering about the universe now', if that's what you want, though.
-
For a troll-thread this thread actually turned out pretty good! Wpeters must be the worst troll in the history of the internet!
I don't agree with his views on this topic, but I respect the way WPeters handles himself in discussions. He doesn't get ruffled and angry and devolve into slinging a bunch of mean-spirited insults. He discusses the topic in a polite way and enjoys the debate. (So, yes, not a good troll. :aok )
-
(Actually, I'd love to be a part of that beer meet-up.)
Arlo, you, too -- if ever you are in the Seattle area, send me a PM! :aok
-
In our regional newspaper of today there was an article inspired by the upcoming flyby of the comet ISON. They stated that at least a great deal the Earth's water is of comet origin. A quick glimpse into Google gives opinions both pro and contra. Nevertheless the possibility of extraterrestial frozen water adds some twist into how life began on Earth. Now if the first reproductive life forms came inside an ice cube, where did they come from and how did they get there? I can't believe that single cell beings could harness a comet as their spaceship...
-
In our regional newspaper of today there was an article inspired by the upcoming flyby of the comet ISON. They stated that at least a great deal the Earth's water is of comet origin. A quick glimpse into Google gives opinions both pro and contra. Nevertheless the possibility of extraterrestial frozen water adds some twist into how life began on Earth. Now if the first reproductive life forms came inside an ice cube, where did they come from and how did they get there? I can't believe that single cell beings could harness a comet as their spaceship...
considering the makeup of a comet and that there may be solid cores in many of them...not hard to imagine some cosmic event hurling large frozen mud balls with single cell organisms trapped in a cryogenic state across the galaxy.
-
funny thing about intelligent design is the basic foundation of it. Eden you think by now we would have found it thru Google earth.
do I believe it yes, that's why its called faith.
semp
Google earth may not be able to find it, but it has been found.
Where do you think all the oil comes from. = Middle east.
Why = Fossil Fuel=organic material=plant life. By the amount that is there it is easly believed to be area with a tropical climate. = Jungles
When God kicked out Adam and Eve out of the garden he set a angle to guard it. I believe when the flood came in Noah's time God covered it with some of the most ugly landscape. It was his way of burying the old world and starting with a clean slate
-
I don't think that's really an important inconsistency. Genetic material changes from generation to generation and slowly drifts just due to imperfections/quirks in the mechanics of DNA and DNA replication, that's something inherent, observed and undeniable whether or not you choose to logically apply that observation to large scale changes over billions of years.
If God had created man in his image 6,000 years ago we are just as different from Adam and Eve as we are from the non-Christian version of humanity that existed 6,000 years ago. It's not possible that we are exactly the same, because if there was a moment of creation, that creation included the (certainly highly impressive, but none the less) fairly flawed methods of reproduction and replication that directly observable.
If you choose to believe that populations remain static over many generations then you have simply closed your eyes to the world.
I think it's always important to keep in mind that nothing gets 'better' in any objective way, just different, in ways that are generally more suited toward the environment. Of course science never considers anything better than anything else, just different, and that applies just as much to evolutionary biology as sociology or linguistics.
There are surely features of religions which make them incompatible with the scientific view of history, but I don't think that evolution is one of them (hopefully it's not because drifts in the genotypes of populations happen observably and that's just not disputable).
The problem with the Adam and Eve story of Genesis for example is not necessarily problematic from a standpoint of the mechanisms of evolution, but just from the standpoint that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. If you suppose that Eden physically existed, but 4.5 billion years ago, we should really expect that modern humans are far different from Adam and Eve, but again I don't think that necessarily is contradictory with Christianity, just the image we were created in had to change along with the world in which we existed, as humans don't live in the heavens with God.
Humans were created in God's image but were not exact replicas of God. It follows that we're imperfect. If you want to suppose that humans were created perfectly then that's kind of silly as we, like other organisms, are pretty overcomplicated, Rube-Goldberg-like, inefficient machines.
I don't necessarily believe that there is no God but I certainly don't believe that humans and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. None the less, evolution and even abiogenesis isn't really incompatible with the idea of an original creator of the universe.
f
There is a extremely simple answer to your thought.
He created in his image, but also he gave us the freedom of will, to make are own choices.
-
There is a extremely simple answer to your thought.
He created in his image, but also he gave us the freedom of will, to make are own choices.
that didn't answer any part of what Motherland said... :lol
i really do not think you look anything like adam, or eve, or noah, or abraham, or moses...aside from having human features that is.
-
... but also he gave us the freedom of will, to make are own choices.
Or was that Satan whispering in Eve's ear?
-
Where do you think all the oil comes from. = Middle east.
That's not true.
-
Or was that Satan whispering in Eve's ear?
Also, if you assume an omniscient knows-all sees-all god, as is the main form present in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (excepting a handful of denominations/sects), that means God already knows what decisions you're going to make. So does that really make it free will?
-
That's not true.
I stand corrected.. THe majority
-
Also, if you assume an omniscient knows-all sees-all god, as is the main form present in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (excepting a handful of denominations/sects), that means God already knows what decisions you're going to make. So does that really make it free will?
He knows what choice we will make. Still the decision is our's to make.
The hardest thing for me to see in evolution is the fact that there is nothing to live for. In evolution you live for self die and that is the end of things.
A creationist lives for others and when he dies he has a reward to look forward to.
-
So the reason you believe in "creationism" is because you have nothing else to live for and is afraid to die?
-
He knows what choice we will make. Still the decision is our's to make.
The hardest thing for me to see in evolution is the fact that there is nothing to live for. In evolution you live for self die and that is the end of things.
A creationist lives for others and when he dies he has a reward to look forward to.
I can't speak for others, I exists because 2 people had sex many years ago...
I'm not entitled value nor am I externally given it. Rather I choose to give my life value. That value is personal and is not for others to decide for me, god or otherwise.
-
He knows what choice we will make. Still the decision is our's to make.
The hardest thing for me to see in evolution is the fact that there is nothing to live for. In evolution you live for self die and that is the end of things.
A creationist lives for others and when he dies he has a reward to look forward to.
You absolutely have something to live for: Surviving to pass your genes on to the next generation. That's the whole point.
So basically, you can say that sex is the meaning of life.
-
So the reason you believe in "creationism" is because you have nothing else to live for and is afraid to die?
NO, I choose to live my life for others!!!
I am not afraid to die.
My point is the following;
To see nature as a gift from a loving creator. To enjoy it to the up most with him
To hear: Music that is melodious. A friend's struggles or victories in the daily grind of life. The sound of a baby's cooing.
To feel: free because I am watched over, the hand of the friend whom I love and who loves me. To a newborn baby in your arms.
And best of all. TO LOVE, to be loved and to love the world around my...
Also to know that I will continue to have my friends with me after I die.. That death doesn't stop my life, that it is the beginning to a much better one.
Where as in evolution it all ends at the grave. Once you are dead there is nothing more to look forward to, or to fear.
Evolution is a never ending tail chase to prove that there is no creator and to try and put the evolutionist mind at peace.
Evolution tends to ignore to many things.
You say I don't believe in science.
I believe in science as long as it doesn't try to prove to me that there is no God. If I didn't believe in science I would be a cave dweller(not typing on this computer).
Prove to me that if there is no God why is there so many things that point to him in everyday life.
One of the simplest are curse words. OMG, GDI.
There is a world of Good and Evil about us which evolution can never begin to explain.
You say faith is indoctrination, what are you enlightened. People have only been trying to prove evolution for the last 250 +or- years. Evolution is a new theory that has no solid backing to say this this and this so this is true.
It is more like maybe this, possibly this, theoretically this equals this.
:salute
-
You absolutely have something to live for: Surviving to pass your genes on to the next generation. That's the whole point.
So basically, you can say that sex is the meaning of life.
Well if that is the case then why do we:
go to school
wear closes
work
debate this topic
build cars
make condoms
have abortions
have wars
go to space
:headscratch: :headscratch: shouldnt we just be making babies.
-
what ever floats your boat. :salute
Just remember, shhhhh, i dont care how cool your dream was. :bolt:
-
Where as in evolution it all ends at the grave. Once you are dead there is nothing more to look forward to, or to fear.
Evolution is a never ending tail chase to prove that there is no creator and to try and put the evolutionist mind at peace.
Evolution tends to ignore to many things.
You say I don't believe in science.
I believe in science as long as it doesn't try to prove to me that there is no God.
If this is what you're being taught in the church you're going to (or even the conclusion you've managed to arrive at, independent of Sunday school and the pulpit) then it is extremely short-sighted and prone to defensiveness for no good reason. I'm constantly amazed at the segment of Christian society that can only find miracles and divine appreciation in fable rather than fact, that can only read about the parting of the Red Sea or the raising of the dead and point at those writings and say authoritatively, "See? This is how God works!" I feel a sort of pity for those who feel threatened by a constant revelation that God is much more far-sighted and capable of a detailed intricacy that is more miraculous than any fire-side story about snakes and apples.
If evolution threatens divinity, to you, then it .... don't take much.
-
Since this life is all there is we ought to make it as pleasant and good for as many people as we are able.
I don't need a supreme being threatening me with eternal torment to do the right thing. I do the right thing because it is the right thing.
I don't justify people living in abject misery and want as being ok because they will be in a paradise nobody can demonstrate exists after they die.
-
:headscratch:
Since this life is all there is we ought to make it as pleasant and good for as many people as we are able.
I don't need a supreme being threatening me with eternal torment to do the right thing. I do the right thing because it is the right thing.
I don't justify people living in abject misery and want as being ok because they will be in a paradise nobody can demonstrate exists after they die.
:headscratch: :headscratch:
Maybe you need to expand your library.
You are satisfied with believing life came about by chance and that when you die you will be done.
By the way I have proof... But dont think this is the place to post it.
-
I don't justify people living in abject misery and want as being ok because they will be in a paradise nobody can demonstrate exists after they die.
Labor attitude control?
Honestly, the teachings of Christ uphold promoting a society where people take care of one another and make THIS world a better place (albeit with an after-life rewarding those who sacrifice and repent of sinful behavior). The institution of religion has always been a political one, however (no matter the deity involved). This is where I refuse to confuse spirituality or faith with religion. It's also where I still listen to sermons with a skeptic heart (measured by what the point is actually attempting to accomplish).
A keen perception of how fear and anger play more of a part than love, understanding and acceptance seems a dead give-away, to me. I figure God is much smarter and wiser than that.
-
:headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:
Maybe you need to expand your library.
What do you mean?
You are satisfied with believing life came about by chance and that when you die you will be done.
It is what it is. Wishing it were otherwise is a waste of time so why do so?
By the way I have proof... But dont think this is the place to post it.
No you don't.
-
I died twice and didn't see any shining white light and the pearly gate.
(http://www.rt66music.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/25/heavenly-music/pearly-gates.jpg)
-
What do you mean?
As a evolutionist, You will not accept any supernatural explanations. Therefore, life had to originate from raw elments. You think that science should only deal with things you can see, smell, touch, and so on; in other words, only material things. You should be able to reason everything out, and God cannot be understood.
Where as, We believe in an almighty Designer. You believe in emptiness and chance. We are not able to comprehend Him, but we do see evidence of Him in His creation. We both must have faith. Your faith is in nothing; ours is in God.
My proof is this.. THis last year, I was questioning if there was a God. I had some things happen in my life that made me wonder if there was one,why he could be so cruel. I had fell in love with a beautiful girl. I felt the time was right and I asked her to marry me. Well the answer was a no. She went and married another guy. Shortly after that, I went into a really dark time. It got to the point that life wasnt worth living. I started to question whether there was a God. Finally one night, I asked, If there really was that I would have a sign.
I fell asleep, durning the night I had a vision. I was standing in a train station. There were many groups of people milling around. As I walked through the station I came to area that had to exits by a conveyor. One marked Heaven,one Marked Hell. Needless to say I was directed to hop on. In a moment, I was transported to heaven. I was transported . I arrived in the air a moment later at about 1500 Foot above the country side. I was held in the air by two angles. They were people that I had know down here. Actually close family.
The countryside was extremely beautiful. There no words really to describe it. I was like one Big flower garden / jungle/Mountains. In the distance, I saw a huge city. It shone as so extremely bright. From that city came some of the prettiest music I have ever heard.
I hung there supported by those two angles for close two a minute. Before I woke up in bed. The thing that will stick with the most from that experience is the peace I felt in that place. I have never in my life felt so loved and at peace.
As long as I live, I will never ever doubt that there is a God. My faith has never been stronger.
IF you ask for a sign and deep down you really want to know if There is a God. He will give you that sign. :salute
I apologize for breaking rule #14 Skuzzy
-
Objectively you need a god ability for morality. Morality without a God worldview is nothing more than arbitrary mental aggression. Good and Bad, Right and Wrong are borrowed from a ' theist' worldview.
-
Objectively
That's a pretty tall claim man
-
That's a pretty tall claim man
every bit which is true. Believe it or not is up to. Kanak asked for proof and here it is
-
Interesting story, but not proof, though I do not doubt you are entirely sincere about it.
You seemed to conflate evolution of abiogenesis there. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, just with how life changes over time. There has to be life for there to be evolution. Abiogenesis is a different subject that relates to the creation of life and there is vastly less known about it than about evolution.
-
Interesting story, but not proof, though I do not doubt you are entirely sincere about it.
You seemed to conflate evolution of abiogenesis there. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, just with how life changes over time. There has to be life for there to be evolution. Abiogenesis is a different subject that relates to the creation of life and there is vastly less known about it than about evolution.
Well, the angles may dispute that, I guess. ;)
The book of Genesis involves a poetic folk tale which has little to do wth what God is actually capable of. It's simplification for a time that only understood simple things.
-
Abiogenesis is a different subject that relates to the creation of life
It's also a great track by Carbon Based Lifeforms: http://youtu.be/LoKt4vhJ-c0 :rock
-
Objectively you need a god ability for morality. Morality without a God worldview is nothing more than arbitrary mental aggression. Good and Bad, Right and Wrong are borrowed from a ' theist' worldview.
Not true.
-
where is a scientist when you need one.
-
Not true.
Quite arguable, and it depends exactly what you mean by morality.
Personal morality can exist without god, thats absolutely true. But without some higher authority directing us, all morality becomes subjective, unless you want to play the "well it just is!" game. What do I care if a bunch of old farts in the government tell me aggravated assault is wrong? Who are they to tell me what I should and shouldn't do? They're no different than I am.
And if you follow certain hedonistic views of the world (the best life is the most pleasurable life, pleasure is the only thing that is inherently good for us, etc), you can make a pretty solid case for doing whatever the hell you want, assuming their is no god.
-
Morality is relative. What one person finds moral another may find reprehensible. It is a continuing source of conflict and war.
-
wow, good to see other people jumping in...and no personal attacks (yet)
Also, if you assume an omniscient knows-all sees-all god, as is the main form present in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (excepting a handful of denominations/sects), that means God already knows what decisions you're going to make. So does that really make it free will?
for those that choose to believe yes, although the choices are limited. contrary to the doctrines of organized religions, there are always 3 choices, good, bad or indifferent, you are free to make the choice you want. even knowing what decisions we're going to make, the omniscient god uses our conscience (for lack of a better word) to guide us into making the good choice, but what decision we make is always up to us. for the purposes of organized religion, indifference is equal to bad, which in a sense is somewhat true, although it is subjective. there are always consequences to our decisions as well. and those consequences, whether immediate or delayed may not be to our liking.
Since this life is all there is we ought to make it as pleasant and good for as many people as we are able.
I don't need a supreme being threatening me with eternal torment to do the right thing. I do the right thing because it is the right thing.
I don't justify people living in abject misery and want as being ok because they will be in a paradise nobody can demonstrate exists after they die.
that may very well be the case for you as it is for others. by choice, the life you have for as long as it lasts will be the life you get. it will be a self fullfilling prophecy, so to speak.
there is no supreme being threatening you with anything. all the hellfire and damnation pulpit talk is just to get you to bow down to whatever doctrine organized relgious sects want you to follow. whatever existence there is after your physical life is done will be what you earned. it cannot be auctioned, bargained for or bought. even a life of sainthood (by human standards) cannot change your destiny.
even those who have the most material wealth in the world can live in abject misery, just as there are people who live in complete poverty, yet their lives are filled with happiness. you have no idea what awaits them when their lives on the physical plane are done. with just your eyes, you cannot see the nucleus of an atom, nor can you see another planet 100 trillion light years away, yet just because other people have claimed they exist you have no trouble believing either exists without a personal demonstration. talk about an act of faith.
-
That's a pretty tall claim man
Please explain how you get morality without a god ability. You do realize you would have to be a moral authority right?
-
The hardest thing for me to see in evolution is the fact that there is nothing to live for. In evolution you live for self die and that is the end of things.
A creationist lives for others and when he dies he has a reward to look forward to.
What a crock!
There are billions of people on this earth that don't believe in your skydaddy. Are you saying that none of them are living a worthy life?
Have a look at Eastern Philosophy. It's all about realising your life is interconnected with everyone else's.
And then you die.
You are here not because of some bloodthirsty creator (who shed the first blood in the Wholly Babble?) but because your parents had sexual intercourse.
I live a worthwhile life and my life has a positive impact on hundreds of other people.
Religion is just another way to separate me from you.
-
all it takes is one...sad really it was a good conversation.
I live a worthwhile life and my life has a positive impact on hundreds of other people.
with your attitude i seriously doubt that is true...
-
Please explain how you get morality without a god ability. You do realize you would have to be a moral authority right?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I need to be a moral authority? Do you mean I have to have written a book?
Morality is indeed possible without a god. I admit, I was skeptical at first too (and that may easily have been because I was still active in the church at the time, so was following the ideas I'd been taught). Lots and lots of religion- and ethics-oriented classes and studies showed me that it is indeed possible to have morals without religion.
"Man" is a social animal. He/she NEEDS a healthy, strong society to ensure survival, and more importantly to ensure survival of their offspring. The 10 commandments are really nothing more than a good foundation for a healthy society (whether they come from god or not). All societies follow those basic rules to some extent. If they don't, the individuals end up tearing the society apart from the inside. Individuals that do that are seen as a threat (acting immorally) and are controlled, in one form or another.
Society takes the place of the god authority. And of course, society can be local, regional, or widespread (almost global, nowadays) and can be made up of many sub-societies.
If it comes down to success, survival, etc, society will alter its sense of morality (regardless of belief in god).
-
I would think I dont destroy society out of respect for my family, myself, and other people. Not because Im afraid of what will happen after death. Seriously, self serving beliefs in a imagined truth are just another means to help the individual understand life.
-
Please explain how you get morality without a god ability. You do realize you would have to be a moral authority right?
I have read several "holy books" from cover to cover, and I have yet to find one that I would consider "moral". For every example of moral deeds described, there are a score of other acts I find utterly deplorable. Sure if you cherry pick the verses you like and that happen to coincide with modern secular consensus, you can call that "moral". However you'd need a rationale for why you left out all the immoral parts, like killing and torturing people for trivial or even nonsensical reasons. It's almost like these holy books were written by sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated men, instead of a loving God. Weird huh!
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/carl-sagan-children.jpg)
-
Please explain how you get morality without a god ability. You do realize you would have to be a moral authority right?
There have been multiple studies that describe reasons and mechanisms for this. I cannot go into more here.
-
I believe there has never been any society or civilization without some kind of a religion which summarizes their moral code among other things. There certainly are people that say their moral is independent of any religion, but I strongly suppose that at least their grandparents and their ancestors have been raised to follow the religious rules, sharing their values and moral down to younger generations.
-
In essence it is very simple. The tribe that don't murder each other, but helps one another, helps the tribe's children survive, and defends other tribal members from attack, has an evolutionary advantage over a tribe with no "morals". By helping others you ultimately help yourself, and that is the basis of all morality and the fabric of human civilization itself. You see this in nature; the buffalo heard, the wolf pack, the lion pride. Together they are more fit to survive than on their own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
These animals have no religion, worship no God.
-
These animals have no religion, worship no God.
How do you know? Can you speak Animal?
Anyway, especially in primitive cultures the idea of mutual back scratching might not have worked without some all-seeing authority. I'm not quite sure if it worked today, psychological tests where people have been given power over others without fear of punishment have given quite a dark picture of the human nature.
-
Punishment is exactly what those buffaloes did to the lions for trying to take one of the herd's calf. It didn't matter to them that this calf was not their own; it was the right thing to do.
-
try to beat up a dogs friend and see what happens. :mad:
-
These animals have no religion, worship no God.
:rofl that's a good one.
Punishment is exactly what those buffaloes did to the lions for trying to take one of the herd's calf. It didn't matter to them that this calf was not their own; it was the right thing to do.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol :lol stop, i'm going to pee...
how does a creature with no sense of right or wrong determine what is the right thing to do?
Morality is indeed possible without a god. I admit, I was skeptical at first too (and that may easily have been because I was still active in the church at the time, so was following the ideas I'd been taught). Lots and lots of religion- and ethics-oriented classes and studies showed me that it is indeed possible to have morals without religion.
If it comes down to success, survival, etc, society will alter its sense of morality (regardless of belief in god).
sorry but no, it is not possible for man to dictate his own moral code the way you're thinking. even the ethics lesssons you received had some religious basis. we may be social creatures but we're also savages. consider the fact that even now, there are things we in the u.s. view as immoral that are not viewed the same way in other societies around the planet. and our morals today are different from those of 200, 500, 1000 even 2000 years ago. even the basic idea that life is precious did not always exist within human society...not to mention cannibalism, inter family relations, same sex relations, etc...
-
how does a creature with no sense of right or wrong determine what is the right thing to do?
The right thing to do is what helps an animal survive, and what has helped its species survive. For humans it means forming communities for common defense and resource sharing. For wolves it means banding together to hunt and kill prey more easily. For a wolf it is morally right to kill you for food. For a human it is morally right to kill the wolf to protect not only himself, but another human being. A common defense makes a tribe stronger. The tribes that didn't died out long ago.
-
Humans have become brain rich and instinct poor
-
For a human it is morally right to kill the wolf to protect not only himself, but another human being.
With that logic killing all wolves would be morally right. As well as bears and lions and other animals that might be dangerous for a human being. Instead we try to protect them because that is considered to be the human thing to do.
-
With that logic killing all wolves would be morally right. As well as bears and lions and other animals that might be dangerous for a human being. Instead we try to protect them because that is considered to be the human thing to do.
I don't agree with these tree-huggers that want to preserve the wolf in our fauna. It isn't dangerous for humans at this level, but it is a pest that kill domesticated animals. It should be exterminated.
In fact, most apex predators that pose a threat to humans should be exterminated. Unless there are less severe, yet economically and practically feasible ways to protect humans from them.
-
Not true Bizman. We only kill the wolf when it is a threat. Other than a threatening situation we respect another apex predator. We still behave like this today even though we want to protect the species, we still kill it if it becomes a threat.
-
"Not true"??? There still are countries that pay for every killed wolf, like Russia. A couple of generations ago that was true also here. The same has applied to other big carnivores, too, resulting numerous trophies in the parlors of civilized gentlemen, cornerstones in their community and congregation...
-
You think that is morally wrong?
-
You think that is morally wrong?
Killing to extinction? Yes.
-
The right thing to do is what helps an animal survive, and what has helped its species survive. For humans it means forming communities for common defense and resource sharing. For wolves it means banding together to hunt and kill prey more easily. For a wolf it is morally right to kill you for food. For a human it is morally right to kill the wolf to protect not only himself, but another human being. A common defense makes a tribe stronger. The tribes that didn't died out long ago.
you're mistaking instinct with choice. there is no right or wrong choice, it is only the instinct for survival of the species. in the end the survival instinct forces animals to flee from the threat rather than risk death to protect a weaker member of the herd/pack.
-
Killing to extinction? Yes.
In what scripture or holy book did you learn this "moral code" ?
-
In what scripture or holy book did you learn this "moral code" ?
the books of genesis, matthew, mark, luke and john...
-
you're mistaking instinct with choice. there is no right or wrong choice, it is only the instinct for survival of the species. in the end the survival instinct forces animals to flee from the threat rather than risk death to protect a weaker member of the herd/pack.
If you saw that video I posted you would have seen the exact opposite. A herd of buffalo facing down a lion pride to save a weaker member of the herd.
-
the books of genesis, matthew, mark, luke and john...
Anything in those about killing wolves?
-
In what scripture or holy book did you learn this "moral code" ?
None. My opinion is based on the laws of nature. If all of the beasts are killed, their prey will increase in population. Would that bring more meat on the tables of the poor? I doubt.
-
Humans have replaced the wolf as apex predator. Wolves compete with human hunters for the same prey animals, and the wolves also prey on domesticated animals like sheep. They're a pest.
-
If you saw that video I posted you would have seen the exact opposite. A herd of buffalo facing down a lion pride to save a weaker member of the herd.
and? that's still not a choice for right or wrong, it is pure instinct. and in the end, survival of the rest of the herd won out...
Anything in those about killing wolves?
lol, you're really reaching for the stars now aren't you? yes, they are lumped in with "every living creature".
-
Humans have replaced the wolf as apex predator. Wolves compete with human hunters for the same prey animals, and the wolves also prey on domesticated animals like sheep. They're a pest.
This is the point where I stop agreeing with you. Humans are NOT replacing the wolves as the apex predator in the ecosystems in which the wolves are being destroyed. So no, humans are NOT taking over controlling the populations of the prey animals. Deer populations have been exploding in areas where wolves have been removed, and are in turn wreaking havoc on the local ecosystem and making a general nuisance of THEMSELVES.
-
This is the point where I stop agreeing with you. Humans are NOT replacing the wolves as the apex predator in the ecosystems in which the wolves are being destroyed. So no, humans are NOT taking over controlling the populations of the prey animals. Deer populations have been exploding in areas where wolves have been removed, and are in turn wreaking havoc on the local ecosystem and making a general nuisance of THEMSELVES.
Yup.
We can't kill off the ecosystem one inconvenient species at a time.
-
Yup.
We can't kill off the ecosystem one inconvenient species at a time.
Maybe not, but we'll try like hell! :cheers: :bolt:
-
and? that's still not a choice for right or wrong, it is pure instinct. and in the end, survival of the rest of the herd won out...
Advanced animals like most mammalian life are not purely instinct driven, but intelligent, feeling beings. Some are highly intelligent, approaching human levels. In India dolphins have recently been given certain rights of freedom as "non-human persons", which means that killing them or holding them captive is now illegal. A buffalo is not that intelligent, but far from just instinct-driven. Herd animals have social structures and codes of conduct, and these can vary from different herds of the same species.
-
Yup.
We can't kill off the ecosystem one inconvenient species at a time.
Exactly. Agreed, the wolf could eat our cattle, but what about the Pyrenean ibex? The last one got killed in 2000. Was it threatening the pasturing of mountain cows, leaving the poor children of the local farmers without milk? Or did the male ibex just have a good looking pair of horns?
Advanced animals like most mammalian life are not purely instinct driven, but intelligent, feeling beings. Some are highly intelligent, approaching human levels.
Recent studies have proved wolves to be highly intelligent. Yet you just said they're pest, killing of which weren't wrong.
-
This is the point where I stop agreeing with you. Humans are NOT replacing the wolves as the apex predator in the ecosystems in which the wolves are being destroyed. So no, humans are NOT taking over controlling the populations of the prey animals. Deer populations have been exploding in areas where wolves have been removed, and are in turn wreaking havoc on the local ecosystem and making a general nuisance of THEMSELVES.
In your corner of the world that may be the case. and perhaps the wolf has a place in nature there. In my corner the wolves are barely scraping out a living, and must compete against human hunters. Life is hard in Norway. Especially in winter.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/norwaywinter.gif)
-
Advanced animals like most mammalian life are not purely instinct driven, but intelligent, feeling beings. Some are highly intelligent, approaching human levels. In India dolphins have recently been given certain rights of freedom as "non-human persons", which means that killing them or holding them captive is now illegal. A buffalo is not that intelligent, but far from just instinct-driven. Herd animals have social structures and codes of conduct, and these can vary from different herds of the same species.
if you say so...just because humans want to impart human mental processes to animals doesn't make it a fact that the animals have human mental processes. it was proven years ago that humans possess the ability to consciously over ride their basic fight or fligh instincts whereas animals do not. that doesn't mean that dolphins, porpoises and whales don't have similar capacities for conscious thought and behavior, but the buffalo doesn't possess the same intellect.
-
But it isn't purely instinct-driven. It thinks and feels.
-
I live where there has been much more trouble with wolves than has been recorded in Norway. Believe me, I've heard my share of wolf hatred! People who voluntarily want to build their houses a mile away from the road in the woods say that they don't dare to let their kids walk to the road to be picked by the school taxi because of the wolves... I'd say that's their choice; if they want to live in the middle of the nature, then the nature has to be accepted. Oops, I slipped out of the subject...
Are wolves really a threat for people? I agree they may kill sheep more than they can eat at one time, but if the sheep are alone up on the mountains, who's to blame? During the last 215 years only one person has been recorded to be killed by a wolf in Norway, back in 1800. Her memory still lives... As does the memory of the ones killed in the late 1800's here in Finland and those in Sweden. A couple of things has changed since then, though. People don't send their kids alone up in the mountains herding sheep all by themselves for days anymore, they don't have to walk to school through forests for several miles etc. No wolf has ever attacked a schoolbus...
Source: http://wolfology1.tripod.com/id215.htm (http://wolfology1.tripod.com/id215.htm)
-
I don't want wolves gone because they're a threat. They're not. I want them gone because they compete with hunters (me) for prey animals, and their cut comes out of our yearly allotted kills. The second reason is that they are a pest for farmers. Same with seals really; they're a pest for the fish farmers, attacking their nets and releasing farmed fish into the wild. They also compete against the fishing industry for wild fish. There's a bounty on them here in Norway in several counties.
-
That sounds like the stories of the refugees and immigrants: They take our jobs and women.
Will you suffer if you get less prey due to wolves? Will your kids be hungry because of that? How much food could you buy with the money you've used and are using to your guns, ammunition, hunting licenses, travel costs to your hunting ground etc.? If you want easy pray, make a deal with a local farmer and shoot a cow! Sorry, but that's how I feel.
-
I can buy meat in the shops much cheaper and with much less effort than hunting. It is also completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what I need. It's what I want.
-
Wolves go after the weak, old and young where they are less likely to get hurt.
-
Page 26. Have you guys figured it out yet?
-
Page 26. Have you guys figured it out yet?
No. They'll reach an impasse when they try to figure out the Big Bang. :P
-
No. They'll reach an impasse when they try to figure out the Big Bang. :P
It's not like anyone is going to change their point of view, so what is the point of all this?
-
It's not like anyone is going to change their point of view, so what is the point of all this?
How am I supposed to know? I was just trying to help you derail the thread.
-
How am I supposed to know? I was just trying to help you derail the thread.
Why? It's reached over 25 pages, so obviously people are interested in the topic.
Should we just prune the boards of all topics that aren't particularly adherent to your personal interests? :huh
-
It's not like anyone is going to change their point of view, so what is the point of all this?
The point is, the OP desperately wanted to express and evangelicize in a forum that does not allow religious discussions so he labeled the post as "Early Man". This is not a scientific discussion at all. It is just a way for the OP to feed his religious needs.
-
I can buy meat in the shops much cheaper and with much less effort than hunting. It is also completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what I need. It's what I want.
What if your neighbour wants the absolute opposite than you want? If what he wants is equally legal as what you want, would you still rather see him dead? Like, if the neighbour's son wanted to marry your daughter, but you wouldn't want him to be your son-in-law? Bang? Should the ditch bordering your piece of land and the neighbours be on your side or his? That was the reason why my mother's foster father shot his neighbour. He wanted the ditch to be on the other side...
I'd want to keep all of the money my customers pay me, but somehow the majority of it goes elsewhere. The taxman wants one quarter for VAT and income tax, the insurance companies want a fifth or so, the traffic bureau wants some, so does the telephone company, the car repair shop, the advertising medias etc. Don't they understand that I don't want (http://want) to pay them three quarters of my turnover?
The primitive farmers needed to protect their sheep in order to get wool and meat. There's also a reason why certain herding dogs needed to be big and strong. Fences are for keeping the cattle gathered, not for protection. A fenced flock of sheep far away is equal to a bird feeder. The Early Man knew that.
-
Why? It's reached over 25 pages, so obviously people are interested in the topic.
Should we just prune the boards of all topics that aren't particularly adherent to your personal interests? :huh
It was a joke. I don't really care if you guys want to debate evolution vs. creationism. If the man with the hammer says it's ok, who am I to judge?
-
I can buy meat in the shops much cheaper and with much less effort than hunting. It is also completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what I need. It's what I want.
On the other hand, the wolf needs to hunt, because it can't stop by the butcher's shop or the local drive-thru to pick up dinner. Why do your wants matter more than the wolf's needs? The only reason the wolf goes for pets, sheep, cattle, and other domestic animals is because A) humans have put them there and B) because they're a lot easier than running down a deer or elk.
It's human activities that leads to wolves preying on livestock in the first place.
-
I am a creationist and I believe that the world is about six thousand years old...
My question is how primitive was early man?
I have some thoughts and Ideas but would like to see a debate on what you think and why...
(http://www.blirk.net/wallpapers/1920x1200/dinosaurs-wallpaper-4.jpg)
-
Why? It's reached over 25 pages, so obviously people are interested in the topic.
Should we just prune the boards of all topics that aren't particularly adherent to your personal interests? :huh
That is not what he meant, he was responding to my post.
-
It's not like anyone is going to change their point of view, so what is the point of all this?
It's for folks who like to discuss and debate. It's fun! :aok
-
It's for folks who like to discuss and debate. It's fun! :aok
or master debate ;)
-
or master debate ;)
:D :aok
-
On the other hand, the wolf needs to hunt, because it can't stop by the butcher's shop or the local drive-thru to pick up dinner. Why do your wants matter more than the wolf's needs? The only reason the wolf goes for pets, sheep, cattle, and other domestic animals is because A) humans have put them there and B) because they're a lot easier than running down a deer or elk.
It's human activities that leads to wolves preying on livestock in the first place.
I'm not blaming the wolf. It just wants to survive. Why my wants matter more than the wolf's you ask? I'm in a better position to enforce my wants, and I do not want the wolf to survive because it is in conflict with my hobby. The farmers don't want the wolf to survive because it is in conflict with their livelihoods. It's a sheit deal for the wolf, but that's life.
-
Some recent developments... On topic for a change.
"New, high-quality genome sequences from Neanderthal and Denisovan remains suggest that these two groups interbred frequently with other ancient human ancestors and anatomically modern humans. The sequences also revealed evidence of interbreeding with another unidentified human ancestor. The work, led by David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, was presented at a meeting of The Royal Society focused on ancient DNA this week (November 18)."
“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a ‘Lord of the Rings’-type world—that there were many hominid populations,”
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38361/title/Ancient-Genomes-Reveal-Secrets/
-
Some recent developments... On topic for a change.
"New, high-quality genome sequences from Neanderthal and Denisovan remains suggest that these two groups interbred frequently with other ancient Sasquach! and anatomically modern humans. The sequences also revealed evidence of interbreeding with Aliens!. The work, led by Some guy at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, was presented at a meeting of The Royal Society focused on ancient DNA this week (November 18)."
“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a ‘Lord of the Rings’-type world—that there were many hominid populations,”
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38361/title/Ancient-Genomes-Reveal-Secrets/
I can make stuff up too :D
-
I can make stuff up too :D
:headscratch:
-
Hmm. Seems to be some misunderstanding on the difference between presenting results of a test and making stuff up.
-
Some recent developments... On topic for a change.
"New, high-quality genome sequences from Neanderthal and Denisovan remains suggest that these two groups interbred frequently with other ancient human ancestors and anatomically modern humans. The sequences also revealed evidence of interbreeding with another unidentified human ancestor. The work, led by David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, was presented at a meeting of The Royal Society focused on ancient DNA this week (November 18)."
“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a ‘Lord of the Rings’-type world—that there were many hominid populations,”
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38361/title/Ancient-Genomes-Reveal-Secrets/
that information was posted a few pages back...i posted it. obviously you're more interested in what's rattling around in that empty space above your neck than other peoples views unless they are the same as yours.
-
To my knowledge you did not post a link to that article, and your claim that "current research shows that neanderthals and modern humans did not actually intermingle" is clearly contradictory to that article, which states: "New, high-quality genome sequences from Neanderthal and Denisovan remains suggest that these two groups interbred frequently with other ancient human ancestors and anatomically modern humans."
Obviously you need to pay more attention, even to your own opinions and what you've posted.
-
didn't say i posted a link to that article did i? i said information...
you might want to explore further than that single article...
http://planetsave.com/2013/11/22/denisovan-hominins-interbred-with-an-unknown-early-human-species-new-dna-analysis-shows/ (http://planetsave.com/2013/11/22/denisovan-hominins-interbred-with-an-unknown-early-human-species-new-dna-analysis-shows/)
and from here... http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding)
to here... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24603 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24603)
to here... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128323.200-the-vast-asian-realm-of-the-lost-humans.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128323.200-the-vast-asian-realm-of-the-lost-humans.html)
-
the funny thing about all this posts is that both sides are based on one thing and one thing only, faith. there's enough written material to know that there maybe a higher power if you have faith in it. or that there isnt and we have faith in those who have written about certain bones and perhaps how we have developed from others.
there's no ultimate proof one way or another, there's only faith. sad thing is that both sides think they have more faith than the other.
semp
-
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050805201253/uncyclopedia/images/c/c9/Noodledoodle_bg3.jpg)
That is all.
-
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050805201253/uncyclopedia/images/c/c9/Noodledoodle_bg3.jpg)
That is all.
that's what your wife said :).
semp
-
My question is how primitive was early man?
One strange thing popped into my mind: Trepanning was apparently quite widely used surgical procedure already in the stone age. It appears that many of the patients even lived quite long after the operation, since their skull structure had healed.
The stereotypical cave man has mainly been described with a club, rather smashing skulls than repairing them. Of course there aren't any medical reports available from 6500 BC, so we can't tell the reasons for the operation. Later generations have documentedly used the method for various purposes, starting from letting evil spirits out.
-
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050805201253/uncyclopedia/images/c/c9/Noodledoodle_bg3.jpg)
That is all.
Look like a earthling to me. symmetrical, two eyes, two balls, and a semolina skin. Even our aliens look like earthlings. :rolleyes:
-
that's what your wife said :).
semp
Odd, considering I'm not married..or at least I don't think I am.. Is there something I am supposed to know? :uhoh
-
Odd, considering I'm not married..or at least I don't think I am.. Is there something I am supposed to know? :uhoh
it's a marriage joke. you wouldnt understand unless you were married :).
semp
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuMfEAp31HE
Mitchell & Webb :aok
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuMfEAp31HE
Mitchell & Webb :aok
:rofl
-
I love Mitchell & Webb.