jump to last post 1-50 of 57 discussions (390 posts)

Has Darwin's Evolution Theory clouded our judgments

  1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind?  That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.

    Why I am asking this question is because it is my opinion it has.  It is my belief that man has advanced/evolved more than once.  How and when, I couldn't say.  I've been watching the new ancient alien series on the History channel. (Keep in mind I did additional research of my own to see if what they reported was true, and on the matters I'm addressing- Yes, their reporting was accurate.)

    They reported that archaeologists in Africa have found advanced mining operations dating back over 180,000 years.  180 thousand years.  I find that incredible, seeing how man was supposed to be living in caves, wearing furs, grunting, and incredibly dumb.

    I am terribly confused.  How old is mankind?  It is my understanding that mankind has been wiped off the face of the earth five times.  So is that five times the Darwin's evolution cycle has taken place?  It would have to be, right?  At least that is what I'm thinking.  I mean, you would almost have to believe it this way in order to believe in Darwin's evolution. 

    Eisenstein felt that man stopped learning and thinking when he put limitations to his thinking.  He believed that if you could think it, it could be and that it was our job to question everything.  To think outside the box.  Could it be that the Creationist have it right, and that Darwin had it right too?  Could it be that what we are discovering now, is simply the other four evolutional lost civilizations, confusing our thinking?  Could it be that God really did recreate mankind 2,000 years ago, and this cycle of evolution is the fifth cycle of man- which was more advanced?  You know there are some scientist that believe that the Grand Canyon was caused by a great massive flood.
    I mean there are so many possibilities.  Why does it have to be one way or another?

    I'm off.  Be back later, have a great day.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The grand canyon was carved by the Colorado river over the course of millions of years. Almost 99% of every Geologist who has studied the matter agrees upon this. The only ones who disagree have an ulterior motive (i.e. those who believe in Noah's flood).

      There is a direct line, an unbroken chain, going from us to our oldest biological ancestors. The evolution of man has not gone "in cycles." The other species of human that existed (neanderthal and like) went extinct, but they are not our ancestors. They were entirely different species of human being who shared a common ancestor with us. Our direct line of ancestors were still very much alive. This has been proven through the fields of Genetics, Geology, and Biology. We have DNA evidence, the fossil record, geological evidence, so on and so on.

      Also, homo-sapiens (what we are) appeared on the scene roughly 150,000 to 200,000 years ago (give or take) and they were every bit as intelligent as we are (because they were us). So, I'm not surprised at all to discover that they had developed advanced mining techniques. They weren't stupid.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know.  I find this to be a little more convincing than just your opinion.

        From a "scientific" article concerning the theory I'm speaking of:
        Here is an excerpt from that study, by Dr. Andrew Snelling.  Dr. Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and the U.S.

        "Folding a Whole Strata Sequence Without Fracturing
        Examples of Bent Rock Layers in the Grand Canyon":


        http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v4/n2/carbon-canyon.jpg

        The boundary between the Kaibab Plateau and the less uplifted eastern canyons is marked by a large step-like fold, called the East Kaibab Monocline
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v4/n2/bent-rock-layers.jpg
        It is possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons. All these layers had to be soft and pliable at the same time in order for these layers to be folded without fracturing. The folded Tapeats Sandstone can be seen in Carbon Canyon (top) and the folded Mauv and Redwall Limestone layers can be seen along Kwagunt Creek (bottom). The 4,500-foot sequence of sedimentary layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon stands well above today’s sea level. Earth movements in the past pushed up this sedimentary sequence to form the Kaibab Plateau. However, the eastern portion of the sequence (in the eastern Grand Canyon and Marble Canyon areas in northern Arizona) was not pushed.  It’s possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons. For example, the folded Tapeats Sandstone can be seen in Carbon Canyon. Notice that these sandstone layers were bent 90° (a right angle), yet the rock was not fractured or broken at the hinge of the fold. Similarly, the folded Muav and Redwall Limestone layers can be seen along nearby Kwagunt Creek (Figure 4). The folding of these limestones did not cause them to fracture and break, either, as would be expected with ancient brittle rocks. The obvious conclusion is that these sandstone and limestone layers were all folded and bent while the sediments were still soft and pliable, very soon after they were deposited.

        Herein lies an insurmountable dilemma for uniformitarian geologists. They maintain that the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited 500–520 million years ago3; the Redwall Limestone, 330–340 million years ago4; then the Kaibab Limestone at the top of the sequence (Figure 2), 260 million years ago.5 Lastly, the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted (about 60 million years ago), causing the folding.6 That’s a time span of about 440 million years between the first deposit and the folding. How could the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone still be soft and pliable, as though they had just been deposited? Wouldn’t they fracture and shatter if folded 440 million years after deposition?

        The conventional explanation is that under the pressure and heat of burial, the hardened sandstone and limestone layers were bent so slowly they behaved as though they were plastic and thus did not break.7 However, pressure and heat would have caused detectable changes in the minerals of these rocks, tell-tale signs of metamorphism.8 But such metamorphic minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior9 is not observed in these rocks. The sandstone and limestone in the folds are identical to sedimentary layers elsewhere.

        The only logical conclusion is that the 440-million-year delay between deposition and folding never happened! Instead, the Tapeats-Kaibab strata sequence was laid down in rapid succession early during the year of the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood, followed by uplift of the Kaibab Plateau within the last months of the Flood. This alone explains the folding of the whole strata sequence without appreciable fracturing.

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v4/n2/kwagunt-creek.jpg Images by Dr. Snelling

        So....., I don't know if I buy the "universal" point-of-view anymore.  You know, I was taught the same exact thing in sixth grade science.  But that was back in 1982.  A lot has been discovered since then.wink 

        How can we leave facts, like this one here which points to an entirely different scenario, unturned?  Another point- lets say they are right about how the Grand Canyon was made.  How would this disprove or prove a man named Noah exists?  It doesn't, so I don't know why evidence like this just gets ignored.  That's what I'm talking about.  Be it this theory, or that theory...  when a theory gets drilled into our minds, why is it so difficult to accept a new one, or a different one.  For me, it is quite striking that the evidence surrounding parts of the Grand Canyons humble beginnings point to a flood.  I cannot see how we can keep ignoring the facts. 

        Like the facts surrounding mankind existence, such as we have reproduce, lived and died off at least five different times in earth's history. So I will ask it again, is that five different "evolutional" cycles of man?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Limestone does not form layers in just a short time!  Neither do the other layers.  And what could cause these layers to be completely separate from each other.  Your sceanario would have required several great floods to form these formations, not just one big one!

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            First it is not my scenario.  I'm not at all a scientist, or a geologists.  No, I'm a surgical assistant to an oral surgeon here in Columbia, MO.  So this is not my scenario.  I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for evidence like this, nor would I know how. 

            I read alot.  I retained vast amounts of useless information, and from time to time I get a thought in my head that makes me go bump in the night.  Well...., as I wrote- I saw a program on TV and started asking questions from there..........

            Again, I'm not saying one way or another.  I'm just asking whether or not our judgments have become clouded.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Only if you believe the church knows more than scientists!

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                which church?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Fundamentalist and Mormon

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Wouldn't you love to take the funda and the ist off, as well as the m in the middle  of the second word?

                    lol

                    I'm just trying to be witty, everybody. I have nothing against mormons.

              2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Randy, I must have missed your point here.  Because I simply do not follow your vague meaning.  Sorry.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Andrew Snelling is a two faced guy who works for a creation based magazine.  He also has published reports in which he sets the ages of sedimentary layers as being millions of years old.

              He says one thing in his creation articles and another when doing geological work for hire.  A self serving fraud!

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                wow, you're really into this.

              2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Is he?  Well...., there you go.  I do find his scientific renderings interesting, a tad more than just your personal opinion of the guy.  Got anything else, any other proof against his findings?

                So you don't like him.  Ok.  I don't know him enough not to think of him as a fraud.  So my judgment on him as an individual is still open.  But whatever your personal feelings are on this person, how do you dispute this evidence he has put forth?  Have you studied the region and taken soil samples?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  So much for your assertions!


                  http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

                  I don't need to dispute his findings, he does this himself!  LOL!

                  1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So you've studied the region for yourself?  Is that what you're telling me.  Because you've totally lost me. 

                    This is how I see it thus far.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Whatever the guy is; his findings tell us something else helped create the Grand Canyon.  That it wasn't just the Colorado River.  That possibly over time a different type of erosion occurred, and that this type of erosion caused by flooding possibly had something to do with it.  Again, I feel I must point out that it is scientific evidence.  Being that it is scientific evidence, then it needs to be handle as such.  Which, according to my understanding of the industry standard, is that it is something to be considered a "plausible cause."

                    I'm sorry Randy, it seems you want to dispute the man and not the evidence.  I'm not interested in disputing the man, but the evidence presented.  I tried to make that point in my previous comment.  So to make it clearer, let me say that I'll go so far as to agree with you on your findings about his personal character. Hows that for making an assertion?  I mean, I haven't had a chance to make my up my mind on this guy yet.  I've been working too hard lately, and haven't had the time to read up on his personal merit.  Truthfully, he doesn't really interest me.  So, I'll take your word for it.  He's a loser.  Ok?  Is that assertive enough?  Happy? Good, I'm glad we could clear that up.  We don't like him as a person, or for his personal beliefs.

                    But...., lets get to that scientific matter.  On that subject matter you have offered nothing up "scientifically" to oppose it, correct? But, you have offered up your own opinion on his findings. Well then there you go.  What have I had to use as an "assertive" argument?  Therefore, I haven't had anything to assert too!  So where you got that idea is beyond me.  Were you making an assumption perhaps?

        2. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I wouldn't trust anything from dr snelling.  seems he has a double life - reporting in millions of years earning money as a geology consultant, then in thousands of years for a creation magazine

          http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

          1. 0
            AWBClarkeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Dear Balleybear,
            That's nice but no one seems to want to take a closer look at the research.  He has done thorough research and presented it reasonably.  He did not leave it hanging on a "missing link".

      2. thisisoli profile image63
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Also a good point, even today you can see that there are several 'strains of humanity', these could have been parrellel, at different times, but not necessarily one strand of humanity.

    2. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      To clarify, the ancestors of modern humans were NOT wiped out at any point in time. Had they been wiped out, we would not be here.

    3. Shadesbreath profile image90
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That mining thing sounds interesting.  Got any links to these alien studies and documentaries?  I'd love to see some academic and peer reviewed research on them.

      As for the statement made by someone in the thread about us being distinctly different than Neandertal... that idea isn't quite as easy as that, and our "purity" has come under scrutiny recently, as there are some genetic data that suggest we have something like 2% or 4% Neanderthal genetic material in us based on some DNA analysis of Neanderthal remains.

      http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_2.htm  (It's under the section "Who Were the Neandertals and What Happened to Them?)

      1. 0
        Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say that we were "purely" homosapien and if it was implied in my message then I apologize as it was not my intent.

        I know that "interbreeding" between Neanderthal and Homospaiens occurred. We were close enough genetically that it was possible for it to happen.

        What I said, was we are not directly descended from them. They were a separate species of human that we shared a common ancestor with.

        1. Shadesbreath profile image90
          Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I guess it sort of depends how we use "ancestor" then.  Or when.  lol.  Neandertal was not our ancestor, though we shared an ancestor, until he did the nasty with our ancestor and became our ancestor anyway.

          1. 0
            Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I see your point.

            So we can say that "some" Neanderthals were our ancestors (do to interbreeding) while "most" were not.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              yes, people with large occipital buns are said to be descendants of these sometimes inbreeding

            2. ACRichmond profile image61
              ACRichmondposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What if evlolution is the scientific (grown up) explanation of Creationism.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                then the word creationism no longer applies...its intelligent design.

              2. 0
                Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Are you saying that a powerful being(s) of some kind set the parameters of evolution by natural selection and - in essence - "hit the start button?"

                It's possible, but the theory of evolution works just fine without that assumption.

      2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Shades, here is one; http://www.old-earth.info/?p=92

        I like what he says here:
        "To put things in perspective, ancient Sumerian civilization began circa 4000 BC, and that’s the oldest civilization we are taught about in school. However, the passed-down history of most of Earth’s cultures says that the Earth has known many civilizations over vast reaches of time; they rise and they fall, often due to cyclical natural disasters, floods and earthquakes..."  Makes you think doesn't it?

    4. ACRichmond profile image61
      ACRichmondposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Please remember that we are still learning and as we think we understand DNA and such fairly new concepts, they are only current theories. Who knows what we will be debating in ten years. For now, we have these findings. Remember that history holds many intelligent people that have opened great windows to other intelligent people who open bigger ones. Our world is a giant puzzle and we would be arrogent to think we solved all mystery with one small piece.

      1. 0
        Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think what you're trying to say is:

        "The only true knowledge, is knowing that you know nothing," or something to that effect.

        And you're right. However, the only way we can advance in our knowledge is to continue learning and questioning. We can only do that if we look at our most current understanding of things and say to ourselves, "what can we do to move forward?"

        Trying to move backward into bronze age Palestine by way of creationism is NOT progress.

      2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think you get my meaning, based off your post and I think this is exactly what has happened.  Its like we have to be either for or against, either we support it or we don't.  Eisenstein didn't support one person's theory over another's theory, no...; he just set out to prove them viable.  Whatever that opinion/theory was.  He kept an open mind to other possibilities.  You know, I can see Albert Eisenstein supporting both the Darwin theory and the Creationist's opinion, but, then proving them both false.  He did have a dry-wit and sense-of-humor.smile

        I think this is what is actually happening today.  Our minds are clouded, with predetermined ideals that apparently, and slowly being proven that they just don't jive with the new archaeological findings.  The more we discover, the less we know and because we all strongly believe "either or" our judgment is clouded to reality. 

        Night all.  Be well.  I will try to read more posts tomorrow.  I'm so intrigued by everyones ideas here.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you that it is a contender to the linear belief that our civilization started 6,000 years ago. and we were all cavemen before that.  I can totally buy it and there are a lot of evidences that point to it.

          it's not farfetched.  (but I digress, I do have a tendency to be open-minded)

    5. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What is this recent discovery you are talking about?  I see you are talking about older civilizations having been destroyed and the possibility of other life having come to Earth but I don't understand your question.

      "Has Darwin's theory clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind?"

      I don't know if you are suggesting that evolution never happens because you believe that alien gods were responsible for the creation of themselves and us as we are today because "civilizations" have been wiped out as much as 5 times according to the theory?

      All I can say is, it is fascinating but just don't confuse the formation of the Universe with an Alien who also created the Universe.

      Science and Religion have two completely different concepts of god and creation.

    6. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This really depends on who you ask.  However, if you ask me, I never viewed science as a contradiction to religion.  If anything, I always viewed it as more of an explanation on HOW god created our universe rather than contradict him.  After all, if your an omnipotent being, then you'd be able to create the universe however you like. 

      I don't think Darwin's theory clouds anyone's judgments either.  No more than you can adamantly say that Steven Hawkins "Big Bang Theory" does the same.  They're both scientific theories held by two renown scientists.  Nothing more or less.

      1. Woman Of Courage profile image62
        Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        stevennix, This is how I view science also.

      2. 0
        AWBClarkeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I wish I could agree that what you have said is what it is in reality. The majority of people I know or have run into vehemently denounce any conversation that questions evolution.

    7. FindMyTeenFashion profile image60
      FindMyTeenFashionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm shocked that everyone seems to be on one side of the fence or the other. I agree with the gentleman who said that both are just thoeries. There are several things that Darwinism can not explain. For example, the orgin of life. And  Creationism is based on faith, so it can not be proven. I think that in order to keep progressing as a species, we should continue to learn about early humans so that we do not make the same mistakes. If not, we may be the first species o destroy ourselves.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        there is a lot of documentation that points that we periodically do this, and we're headed that way again.

      2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have to completely agree with this sentiment.  But all too often we tend to forget to look at our history for certain answers.  I also agree that they are both still only theories.  That is another aspect that goes completely overlooked.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nonsense. The theory of evolution is based on observable facts. The theory of an Invisible Super Being is not. Still - it sounds the same though. lol No one has overlooked the Invisible Super Being "theory" - it is just nonsensical.

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why is the theory that we were created by something more ancient than us, nonsense?  Have you traveled the entire universe?  No, of course you haven't.  So, this is something you might believe to be nonsense, but, it is something you cannot prove to be nonsense.  Until then, well I'll just have to disagree with your opinion.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Of course you will. Despite the proof that we evolved from other species. Hence the thread, and the need to disbelieve proven facts. I never suggested I could prove the Invisible Super Being is nonsense.

              But really? sad

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I cannot help but to laugh.lol

                Mark, I haven't ruled out the "ancient alien" theory.  Which to me is more plausible, than accepting everything was made from nothing.

                Never did I define my "Super" being.  I never wrote that GOD was super, I never wrote down that I actually believed that way either.  I have my own ideas.

                I never made this a religious matter either.  Funny how the atheist here did.  Can you argue nothing new?  Can you not come up with any other new material?  Is it always just the same old same with you?  It appears that it is.  May I suggest that you take your religious debate to the religious forum. 

                May I also suggest you actually read everything I wrote.  This is not a religious conversation Mark.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Must be that time of year huh? wink

    8. gmrfish profile image59
      gmrfishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think some people are confused here.  Darwin's theory of evolution is based upon "survival of the fittest/natural selection" or who is best fit to survive, reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation, and that environmental factors affect the survival of the species.  Darwin did not say we modern humans evolved once from the other hominid species.  These are NEWER ideas, Darwin's ideas were used merely as a platform or base in order to develop our own thoughts and theories.  Darwin also did not propose any ideas onto the origins of life on earth.  The individuals who worked on those theories are Miller, Urey, Fox and Oparin back in the 40's-60's.
           It is human nature to be curious, to want to find answers to things we don't understand.  So far in our history, we have NOT found the answer to how life appeared on earth or how we came to be modern sapiens.  In our history, we have made up various ideas on how we got here and how earth formed.  None of them have been proven, yet, none of them have been dis-proven.  The only ideas out there that has CONCRETE evidence has been evolution....there still are lots of dots to connect and who knows whether they'll ever be connected.  All other forms of belief are based upon word of mouth, no concrete evidence.  Therefore, being a scientist myself cannot accept those other "theories" because they are based upon word of mouth with no evidence to back it up. At least with evolution, there is evidence and we have WITNESSED evolution happen within human history with other organisms.  If you are a member of the Catholic church....remember....you SHOULD believe in Evolution. Pope John Paul II back in 1996 stated the Church recognizes that evolution does indeed happen.
           I don't push my beliefs on anyone, I just state the facts that are known.  It's up to each individual to use the facts at hand to make their own rational decision.  If it's faith, fine.  If it's science, fine.  We all have our own unique way in interpreting information, that's what always makes these topics interesting.

    9. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Tools from the Stone Age have been found dating back more than 800,000 years.



      Hardly. Climatic changes forced people to relocate to other regions. Humans have not been wiped off the face of earth at all.

      smile

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Have they?  I didn't know that.  Can you post some links to your claims.  I would love to research that information myself.  Thanks!

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, what I meant was that stone tools were found dating back 800,000 years previous to the tools found dating back 2.5 million years, putting the latest finds at about 3.4 million years.

          About 70 or so tools were found in the Lower Awash Valley of Ethiopia by palaeontologists. Early hominins; Australopithecus afarensis were thought to have scavenged meat (as opposed to hunting) after leaving the safety of forests and venturing out onto the plains. smile

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But were they advanced?  Did they have the wheel?  Did they build vast mega structures?  The oldest fossil is known to be what, 4 mil plus out of that region......, but how advance was the civilization?  Were they equal to our intelligence level?

            Darwin has the caveman already included.  Believing in his theory, I already acknowledge that.  So, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  However, since it appears you like this topic I found this great book on the information you mentioned for a more accurate account.  It is called, "Understanding the African Philosophical Behind the Diagram of the Law of Opposites."  I think you'd find it interesting.

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not likely. Quite primitive, even by the standards of the animals around them who were able to hunt.



              Again, not likely. They lived in the forests for safety and rarely ventured anywhere else.



              They didn't build anything.



              Not even close. But, at the very least, they didn't believe in gods, so that would put them one up on many other modern folks.



              Just the point that hominids did not disappear but instead were here all along evolving with everything else. smile

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Hey I just found out this information. 

                "The oldest known hominid, or humanlike species, has been dated at 4.4 million years old. Another species, which is yet to be confirmed as a hominid, has been dated at 6 million years old. Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago."-PBS.org 
                Isn't that amazing?  I think its amazing.
                ********************


                Homo sapiens, the species to which we belong, has existed for about 100,000 years. "  Okay, I say.  Then how did those mines in Africa get built, and what about the ruins found off the coast of Japan dating back to over a 120,000 years ago, and how about the ruins recently found in India dating back 150-180,000 yrs ago?  What happen?  Where's Darwins data on these people?  To help you all out- THERE IS NONE!  That is the point I'm trying to make.  Mainstream archaeologists cannot explain these recent findings, since our race only dates back 100,000 yrs.  And to all those who said we just keep evolving.  Apparently NOT!  We are only 100,000 years old. We were supposely stupid as apes at first, according to mainstream ideology and we were without a freaking wheel!  Explain that one.  And, yet we have evidence that an advance civilization OLDER than our evolutionary ancestors, and they built mega structures, roads, flying objects and have advance engineering and astrological intelligence.  These new findings tell us, that there apparently is more to Darwin's evolutionary theory than what is originally thought.  However, mainstream science isn't interested in changing or interested in including that data. Apparently, most of you are not either.  Because many of you all are too worried about what forum this topic should be in, and too afraid to look past the traditional ideas of Darwin's theory- in fear of a religious science fest. 
                Well this isn't about religion, there is no antiDarwin festival in here.  However, what is in this forum thread is some closed mined traditional Darwinist, who might have forgotten that Darwin's evolution was just a theory.  Again a theory- to be drawn upon, tested and added too.  That's all.  It has nothing to do with religion either.  You know by "clouded" I mean one sided, stagnate, stalled, too conventional, old or outdated, cynical.

                Where is our kite people?  What has happen to apple?  Where has the clock towers all gone?  Why aren't we pushing forward more with Darwin's theory, and asking ourselves what is the missing link?

                1. Woman Of Courage profile image62
                  Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  IntimaEvolution, Great researching. Yes this information is amazing and very interesting.

                2. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Not quite right, homo sapiens evolved from other hominids more than 200,000 years ago. smile

    10. thisisoli profile image63
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Humanity would probably not evolve the same way each time, it would in effect not be humanity.

      To start with though, homeo spaiens as we recognise them today evolved over 400,000 years ago.

      I would take a look at human evolution

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

      When it comes to mining operations found in Africa, could you please leave us the source so we can read up?

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah I did leave a link  on a website about the mining find already.  It is somewhere listed in these pages.  Shadesbreath asked for the link as well, so I posted it. 

        I'd personally go back and look again for you, but, I don't think it'll be too hard to find.  I answered their request a couple days late as well, so it might be a few pages off from his original request.  But its in here.

    11. Shahid Bukhari profile image59
      Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Clouding" ... ?

      Its a euphemism ... describing the lame approach to understanding the
      Reality, of Human Existence, via Evolution Theory.

      The other day, I saw a program on Nat Geo channel, showing a mother Hippo, delivering her baby... underwater.
      Its normal for Hippos, to deliver so.

      What held me awe struck, was the fact ...

      That the Hippo baby, as soon as it was out; umbilical cord still attached, eyes still closed ... and as Darwinians say, " INSTINCTIVELY" ... of its own ... swam
      up towards the waters surface !

      Thereby,
      1. breaking the u/Cord 'link' ... and
      2. reaching for AIR !

      So much for the Survival of the Fittest.





         
      ...

    12. 0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      there's plenty on the net about lost civilisations that are thousands of years old, which sound plausible.  Note that not all humans have to get wiped out, evolution still happens.  People were "cave-man style" in places very recently until boat travel allowed people to migrate btwn land masses that have been separated (but were connected earlier in evolution).  eg Aboriginal people of Australia  A lot of these have been shown to be hoaxes put out by the creationists, I suspect, as they also carry on about civilisation being going underwater in a flood. 

      I didn't find anything credible about civilisations hundreds of thousands of years ago.  I did find some nut bar claiming to find gold mining operations  & claimed google earth picked it up (like like in the hoax claims).  Then as I looked further, it started carrying on about gods occupying earth before humans.

      Total BS if you ask me.

    13. 61
      tompoetposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      where did you get your info
      a crackerjack box

  2. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    Darwin is DEAD. So is his theory.
    It's only the ungodly, who have nothing else to put forth that are still trying to keep it alive.
    D, E, A,D, I tell you! (and it stinks)!

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Uh... what?

      Darwin's hypothesis concerning the origin of species is what would later become the theory of evolution by natural selection. A theory that is accepted by more than 90% of the scientific community.

      By the way, the scientific definition of the word theory means: an explanation of the facts.

      There is the theory of gravity, but you don't say that it isn't true simply because it's called a theory, do you? I hope not.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        finally someone says it before I did. what's your name? yeah I'm your fan

        1. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Lol!
          Thanks Cecilia.

      2. Stevennix2001 profile image83
        Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hey buddy, im not here to debate with you, but i just thought you should know that theory isn't an explanation of facts.  The definition actually has many, but I'll give you a few definitions if you like.


        : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
        2
        : abstract thought : speculation
        3
        : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
        4
        a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action  b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
        5
        : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
        6
        a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


        all this was copied and pasted from the webster's dictionary site, so I can show you what a theory actually is.  A theory isn't a fact, it's a theory.  There is a difference.  Granted there have been many theories proven to be right like gravity OBVIOUSLY.  However, I just wanted to give you a heads up to let you know your definition of the actual word THEORY is wrong.  That's all.  Anyways, I understand where your coming from though, and just thought I'd correct you there. smile

        1. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I said, THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING of the word is: "an explanation of the facts."

          Which is true. That is how scientists use the word.

          The word has many uses, but when a scientist says theory their not saying, "this is my abstract idea."

          Scientists use the word according to the first definition of it (in your list of definitions according to Websters).

          Although, when YOU say, "I have a theory... if I fly to the moon with a pair of plastic wings..." that is an abstract idea.

          You didn't correct me so much as you just gave some other ways in which the word "theory" can be used.

          1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
            Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You obviously didn't read the post entirely for if you did, you would've found one of the many terminologies for "theory" does relate to science.  You really should read my post before responding it, as one of the meanings clearly states as it relates to science:

            a plausible or SCIENTIFICALLY acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

            I'm starting to wonder if people even read everything I say anymore word for word on here.  hmm

            1. 0
              Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I did read your entire post.

              And you have many definitions in it.

              The definition that scientists use is the first among the ones you gave.

              The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

              Scientists do not use the word in any other context.

              There is the Theory of gravity, the Heliocentric theory, The theory of evolution, etc.

              All of these theories are: The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

              1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
                Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, but an analysis of a set of facts is completely different than what you said earlier about theory meaning:  an explanation of facts.  Those are both totally different definitions.  An analysis is when you study and observe something; whereas an explanation means to make known.  Basically by your saying that theory explains facts is completely inaccurate according to the English language.  As the word theory means your basically just observing and analyzing a set of facts, so you see there IS a difference.

                Besides, you have to take in mind that a lot of scientific theories have been proven wrong in the past, so you can't say all theories related to science are based on facts.  Sure, many of those same scientific theories may seem preposterous to us, but you have to remember the time frame in which they took place.  For example, many scientists used to believe that it theoretically impossible for us to even fly, but they were proven wrong when the Wright Bros invented the first plane.  Another thing worth noting here, that many scientists used to believe the Earth was flat, but I'm sure we both know that's not true.  You get the picture?  Theories aren't explanation of facts because theories can and do get proven wrong, even when it comes to science.  Hence, the word theory when it's used in the scientific community it's used to say they observe and analyze sets of facts.  Not an explanation of one.

                1. 0
                  Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Fair enough.

                  I can admit when I am wrong. I misspoke (mistyped?) earlier when I said the scientific understanding of the word theory means: an explanation of the facts.

                  I should have said: an analysis of the facts.

                  My bad. I was wrong.

            2. 61
              tompoetposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              if it quacks swims flies like a fool
              then what the hell

      3. gmrfish profile image59
        gmrfishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Here is a definition of theory that is true to the word...none of this wiki or dictionary.com crap I'm seeing on here. 
             THEORY:  An explanation for something based on repeated and accepted observation, evidence, experimentation, and reasoning.

        1. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That works for me.

      4. fits3x100 profile image60
        fits3x100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Jake! Actually theory is an idea supported by observation, and put forth as a possible explanation,  but yet unproven by empirical testing. Gravity is not a theory...it's a Law. Meaning it has been and can always be proven empirically. Micro-Evolution occurs and has occurred since life appeared. But Evolution as put forth in modern textbooks is a Theory, not a fact.  Because so many folks automatically relate creation or intelligent design to some Organized religion, they discard it as a fairy tale. To bad really. A close study of a cataclysmic flood has great merit and more than a little evidence to support it.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Actually Jake is right, a scientific theory IS different from colloquial theory. but I agree with you that there is merit to the investigation of the deluge. Just because its in the bible does not mean its not historical. anyway, the timeline is the one in question. biological evidences support the theory of evolution. It is the timeline that now needs to be reassessed.

        2. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          All of the "evidence" that has been presented to me in support of Intelligent Design does not actually classify as "evidence."

          Everything I've seen or heard are merely assumptions (i.e. that the eye is too complex to have evolved, therefore god did it. This is not evidence... it is an assumption that the eye is "too complex" to have come about by natural processes).

          ALL of the EVIDENCE I've seen supports Evolution.

          Assumptions and arguments from ignorance do not count as evidence.

        3. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          One of the "Laws of Gravity" is that if you pick an object up and drop it here, then it will fall to the ground.

          The "Theory of Gravity" is the analysis and attempted explanation of those facts associated with gravity.

        4. L. Ray Haynes profile image80
          L. Ray Haynesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you fits3x100 for making that astute observation.  Jake< i only know of one Law of Gravity, which essentially states:  bodies with more mass attract bodies with less mass..   As for gravity, we have plenty of empirical data to show its existence, but we still cannot explain why it works or what the force behind it is.   This is still just as much a mystery as how life began..or the origin of the species.  Inasmuch as DNA is coded information in a dynamic progression, there is evidence to support evolution as intelligent design.  Design is significantly less intelligent if it does not allow for the propensity to change/evolve/adapt to varying conditions for the sake of continuation.   Also "survival of the fittest" is a flawed model by Darwinian standards.  The implication is that "only the strong survive" but in evolutionary theory it is the 'mutants' or 'inferior freaks of nature' who seem  to "carry the torch" between species.  This is the paradox of modern evolutionary theory which defies our best logic.  If it is the most perfect specimens who propagate the species, then how is it that the mutant, inferior specimens become the salvation of the species?

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I have no idea what you are talking about but it is not evolutionary theory as either Darwin or modern biologists know it.

            1. L. Ray Haynes profile image80
              L. Ray Haynesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              let me clarify.  Evolutionary theory is based upon the premise that the progression from simple organism to complex happens by way of mutation of the organism through the process of reproduction by the healthiest(fittest) who are most likely to survive.  When we observe mutation in the natural world, it is an aberration which becomes a hindrance to survival by the mutated organism.  I tend to think that mutation is not the model to be used to best explain evolution.  I think a better approach  would be to consider that diversity in an increasing population leads to a wider dissemination of the said population resulting in inhabitation of a wider range of environments.  This consequently leads to inhabitation of niche environments where organisms become highly specialized(adapted)to that particular environment.  My theory is that DNA is a dynamic system which encodes the changes of adaptive behavior within an organism during its lifetime.  Thus DNA is like a collective memory of the organism and its ancestors which is continually building upon itself by encoding new information with each successive generation.  I hope that this clarifies my remarks somewhat.  Let me know what you think.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                *let me clarify.  Evolutionary theory is based upon the premise that the progression from simple organism to complex happens by way of mutation of the organism through the process of reproduction by the healthiest(fittest) who are most likely to survive.

                Nope. Evolutionary theory says vriation is caused by random mutation.  The rare beneficial mutation spread by those animals having more progeny.

                *When we observe mutation in the natural world, it is an aberration which becomes a hindrance to survival by the mutated organism. 

                Most mutations, being random are harmful.  A few are beneficial.  natural selection perpetuals those beneficial ones.

                *I tend to think that mutation is not the model to be used to best explain evolution. 

                I think you have misuderstood the theory

                * I think a better approach  would be to consider that diversity in an increasing population leads to a wider dissemination of the said population resulting in inhabitation of a wider range of environments.  This consequently leads to inhabitation of niche environments where organisms become highly specialized(adapted)to that particular environment.

                This is called geographical speciation and it is a subset of evolution.  It is one way evolution occurs, but not the only way.

                * My theory is that DNA is a dynamic system which encodes the changes of adaptive behavior within an organism during its lifetime. 

                You have reinvented the idea of the inheritance of aquired characteristics.  This was very popular with the French a century ago (Lamark etc) until it was proven to be absolutel incoprrect in that our core genome does not change within out life time, only our phenotype.

                * Thus DNA is like a collective memory of the organism and its ancestors which is continually building upon itself by encoding new information with each successive generation.  I hope that this clarifies my remarks somewhat.  Let me know what you think.

                I think this is a very old idea and now obsolete because research proved it to be incorrect.

      5. Shahid Bukhari profile image59
        Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Agree ...

        But a theory ... is essentially an "angular" opinion, about the Truth of Reality.

        This perception, unfortunately, leads the average reader, to believe, that a Theory, is God's Truth.

        Because, few people have the time, inclination, and/or the required academic background, to go into the nitty gritties of the stated's difference. 

        And since, Theory is generally, presumed as, the Fact ... such perception has become the root cause of modern day disinformation.

        1. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not dogmatic in my approach to science (or anything for that matter).

          I know that the Scientific method is not infallible.

          I am aware of the "possibility" that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection could be wrong.

          But ALL of the evidence that I've seen, every piece of scientific literature that I have studied, ALL OF IT suggests that Evolution is - indeed - a fact.

          Until it is shown to be otherwise, I'm going to rely on the scientific method as the best method we have for distinguishing fact from fiction.

  3. William R. Wilson profile image59
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    What Jake said, and also - 180,000 years is the wink of an eye on an evolutionary time scale.  Writing has only been around for about 6,000 years, and what we call civilization has been around maybe 10,000 years. 

    There's a difference between cultural evolution, which is what we've seen in recorded history and can happen very quickly, and genetic evolution, which is what Darwin's theory deals with.

    Human cultures could well have evolved culturally to a pretty advanced state, several times over - but homo sapiens is pretty much the same as we were about 50,000 years ago.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

      I think much of the confusion about evolution comes from a lack of understanding. People don't study it. They don't do the research themselves. If anyone has a full understanding of the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it they HAVE to accept it. Anyone who doesn't is persisting in delusion.

  4. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    I don't understand the question.  Humans not only evolved more than once, the evolved continually and are evolving to this day.  And digging holes in the ground to get metal isn't that complicated. In fact it is much easier than hunting large animals to make those furs they were wearing.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      True dat! Lol

  5. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    Darwin's theory of evolution clouded his own judgment.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Darwin formed a hypothesis, not a theory. His hypothesis was later proven and subsequently tweaked to become the theory it is today.

      Again, I feel I must reiterate:

      The scientific definition of the word theory means: an explanation of the facts.

      There is the theory of gravity, but you don't say that it isn't true simply because it's called a theory, do you? I hope not.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh nooooo ,not the tweak machine , mankind truly was made in his Creators image,always creating and coming up with amazing discoveries.

        Dont ya love it !

        Dont ya just love it !!

        1. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm...

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          this is true in some level but not in the level that i care to discuss in a forum about evolution.

      2. Manna in the wild profile image83
        Manna in the wildposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        For a more complete desciption of 'theory' please see http://hubpages.com/hub/A-short-descrip … nt-4518280

  6. Daniel Carter profile image91
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    Most people have no idea about Darwin's life. They make assumptions that he was an arrogant atheist, when that is not the truth at all. He was deeply confused, actually wanting to reconcile his early beliefs in religion with what he discovered as a teenaged boy in his treks around the world with the merchant marines. He DIDN'T want to publish his findings. He was constantly nagged by the scientific community of England to publish his findings, against what he thought were his better judgments.

    His wife was a believer. And the incredible tragedies of his life made him want to believe, but his findings could never let him reconcile with a religion or God. Darwin may have been an atheist, but not without a great deal of internal question, struggle and turmoil. He was a tortured soul who could not find the answers he deeply sought during his life.

    That doesn't make him to be a bad person. It makes him like everyone else I know who wonders where God is in the midst of horrific tragedies and catastrophes in life. What he went through and doubted was normal and is what most anyone does in this life.

    As far as his hypothesis and where mankind has been and is now headed, we do not know. We only conjecture. The evidence may lead to assumptions which are of no greater or better value than assumptions that there is a loving, caring God who created us and is watching over us. We have bits and pieces as evidence, fables and stories as a reminder, and nothing of overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence.

    Most of mankind's history and future is conjecture, based on a few erroneous pieces of evidence.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Except... we do have a plethora of evidence supporting evolution. Far more than any other theory out there at the moment. Let us not pretend that creationism and evolution are two competing ideas on equal footing with one another. Evolution by natural selection is accepted as fact in most all of the scientific community. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of evolution. Creationism relies on conjecture and assumptions.

      The Scientific method (for those who need a refresher course) is:

      -observe
      -collect data
      -form a hypothesis from data
      -test hypothesis
      -draw conclusions from experiments
      -communicate your findings

      And only after surviving years and years of scrutiny, testing, and other scientists trying to disprove your hypothesis does a hypothesis earn its status as theory.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image91
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The process of deduction from evidence is not completely infallible unless all the parts and pieces are clear. I DO agree that evolution is the stronger of the two ideologies. However, the puzzle of evolution is not in itself infallible at this point, strong as the evidence is to date.

        In life, not much is very certain, except life...and death.

        1. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I can agree with you here.

          Hell, Isaac Newton was one of the most prolific geniuses of his time and yet many of his theories (once accepted as true) have been shown to be false in part or entirely.

          I am NOT 100% sure about anything (despite what my messages sometimes convey), but I do tend to side with what "makes more sense at the moment."

          1. Daniel Carter profile image91
            Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You do seem quite sensible, and I like that. I think we are on the same page.
            wink

            1. 0
              Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Back at ya.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                but you do seem quite sensible, welcome to hubpages.

                1. 0
                  Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you.

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              but then, what is the measure of fact versus belief. Once you ignore data because its not 100% sure, then you are standing on an entirely different mindset. You have preconception and you will stick to it.

              That is not a crime, but that is also not a weighty argument.

            3. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              looks like this page is getting crowded.  Does that make us agnostic rather than atheist?

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Creationists get all upset and say Darwin set out to destroy christianity.  From what I've read about Darwin, he was tormented with trying to reconcile his christian indoctrination with his observations of the natural world, before finally letting go of christianity (as I did).  The movie "Creation" captured this well.

      1. 0
        Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is true.

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You know, I think there is a big part of our history, which is missing.  There are too many gapping holes in our past.
      That is why it seems the more new stuff that is discovered, the more confused I become.  I'm glad Darwin and I had that in common.wink

  7. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    archaeological discovery in india that is against evolution ? Whoa, which is that ? Can you be specific here ?

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, not that it is against evolution, but, that it proves that mankind had been killed off before, and then regenerated again to become the civilization of today.  The ruins, which are underwater and are said to have built by a highly developed ancient society.  Well according to the accepted/modern day archaeological mainstream- man hadn't invented the wheel yet, let alone have a communicable alphabet.  But this new ancient discovery of this city, and it's advanced architecture proves something entirely different. But the mainstream is what is still being taught to our children in schools.  They still think the oldest civilization is the Sumeria.  But according to this recent finding- this civilization dates over a hundred thousand years ago as well. 


      "To put things in perspective, ancient Sumerian civilization began circa 4000 BC, and that’s the oldest civilization we are taught about in school. However, the passed-down history of most of Earth’s cultures says that the Earth has known many civilizations over vast reaches of time...."-Dan Eden

  8. pisean282311 profile image58
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    well there are ancient books in India which describes humans of 1,70,000 years ...in same lines to what you viewed on t.v...you might have a point out here...it is possible that humans might have been wiped out due to something and again species evolved...but that doesnot make Darwin theory wrong...since his evolution theory is seen on daily basis...yes that makes religions (most of) wrong...

  9. I am DB Cooper profile image67
    I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago

    Evolution is happening all the time. Mankind was never wiped off the face of the earth. There have been population bottlenecks, the most significant of which was probably after the Toba volcano eruption about 70,000 years ago, which reduced the human population from hundreds of thousands or even millions to just 1,000 breeding pairs. Homo sapiens and neanderthals co-existed for a long time before that, as did other species that are more similar to modern humans than chimpanzees. We did not evolve from all these species; some of them were just different branches off the evolutionary tree and we shared a common ancestor. We are just the only advanced branch that survived from that lineage. Even the monkeys that we evolved from millions of years ago are not the same as the monkeys we see today.

    The thing about evolution is that it need not be blind. Humans are advanced enough to be able to control evolution (to an extent) in other species. We've actually been doing it for thousands of years. Have you ever seen what an ear of corn looked like thousands of years ago? How about a banana? Domesticated dogs were created through the selective breeding of the most docile wolves. We've changed other species to fit our own needs, but over the course of millions of years (and often much shorter periods, usually caused by sudden environmental changes) species will evolve on their own as the individuals best suited for a particular environment produce offspring in greater abundance.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you! Great post, DB Cooper. Bravo!

    2. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hahahaha.....
      "WE" did not "evolve" from "monkeys."
      LMAO!
      Qwark

      1. 0
        Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're right.
        We are part of the Great Ape family. Our ancestors were apes, not monkeys.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Jake:
          Wrong!
          We broke off from ancient hominids about 4 million yrs ago.
          The great apes took off on one limb of the tree of evolution and we another.
          We were never "apes."
          Qwark

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            to say that we were never apes is actually true. but we were never snakes either. Life evolved and certain break throughs became the norm of life and that is what is meant by we evolved from them.

            1. qwark profile image61
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Cicilia:
              WE ALL evolved from 'lil one celled life. We're all related!
              No doubt about that!
              Qwark

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                we all evolved from proteins...so that means we are related to amino acids too...aka dirt. we could spin it ten thousand ways and still it will be all true at some level. lol *haaaaaay buhay*

                1. gmrfish profile image59
                  gmrfishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  quark is an extremist.  No use in arguing with this person.  :-)

          2. 0
            Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well, good sir, it appears I was mistaken.
            Thank you for setting me straight about this (until now I really did think that we were part of the Great Ape family).

            BTW, I like your humorous delivery.

            "Hi Jake:
            Wrong!"

            Ha ha ha! Great stuff there.

            1. qwark profile image61
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              NP Jake...smile
              Qwark

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              holy crap, someone admitting being wrong?!

              Good job, good sir. Good Job.

          3. 0
            Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But hold on...

            "The Hominidae (anglicized hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1] or humans and great apes), as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans.[1] In the past, the term was used in the more restricted sense of humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees."

            My source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

            1. 0
              Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Never mind... it says humans AND great apes. Implying a difference.

              Again, I was mistaken.

            2. qwark profile image61
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Very true.
              Today, we are categorized as Hominidae.
              There is only .01 difference in us and our closest evolved relative the "chimp."
              We are considered members of the great apes because we all evolved from the base hominids several million yrs ago.
              Yes we are related. No doubt about that. But we we did not evolve FROM "apes."
              Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees.
              it is believed that this common ancestor existed
              5 to 8 million years ago.
              The species then diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors.
              Qwark  smile

              1. 0
                Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for the info, qwark! I'll be sure to remember it for later use.

          4. tonymac04 profile image89
            tonymac04posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually Jake is right. We are of the phylum "chordata" (i.e we have backbones;  of the class "mammalia" i.e. our females give birth to live babies which are then suckled; of the order "primates"; of the family "hominidae" or great apes; of the genus Homo (human); and of the species "Sapiens" and the sub-species "Sapiens" also. The scientific name for us therfore is Homo sapiens sapiens.
            We are genetically fairly closely related to bonobos, orangutangs, chimps and gorillas.
            To show this the bonobo is classified as a member of the phylum chordata, of the class mamalia, of the order primates, of the family hominidae, genus Pan, species paniscus.
            Hope this helps clarify this point!

            1. 0
              Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks tonymac04! It does help to clarify.

              I think we are all correct on this one.

              Qwark is saying that we didn't evolve from apes... which is true. It was an "ape-like" ancestor, but not apes.

              However, I think you and I are right in saying that we (humans) are a type of ape. Which I am pretty sure of.

            2. qwark profile image61
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yep:
              Mammalia all.
              WE did not EVOLVE from the "ape."
              Qwark

              1. 0
                Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That is correct. I think the three of us (me, you, and tonymac04) are now in agreement about this fact.

                1. qwark profile image61
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yep Jake...smile
                  Qwark

              2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                but aren't there five great apes, including the bonobos? we are an ape people.

                1. 0
                  Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think... and someone (probably qwark) correct me if I'm wrong... that we ARE a type of ape. But we are not a part of what is known as the "Great Apes."

                  Also, us (humans) and Great Apes (chimps, gorillas, etc.) share a common "ape-like" ancestor (but "ape-like" does not mean "ape").

                  However, we (Humans and the Great Apes) did not evolve from apes... because we are apes.

                  1. tonymac04 profile image89
                    tonymac04posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    We are of the family "hominidae" or the great apes. We are one of the great apes. And yes, we evolved from a common ancestor which was an ape-like primate.

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        we actually evolved from snakes.

        brain stem - plant brain technology
        reptilian brain -reptiles brain technology
        paleo-mammalian -birds brain technology
        cortex- mammals - mammalian brain technology
        prefrontal cortex - ape technology but more developed and pronounced in man.

        to say that we didn't evolve when clearly even the brain evolves within a person's lifetime is denial.

        we evolved. evolution is a factual thing. How we evolved is still in question and why. But as to whether we evolved or not, is no longer in scientific discussion. the data is clear. slice up your brain and you'll see it upgraded.

  10. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    The new theory now is called THE GREAT FORGETTING.

    what is scary is if man became cavemen after knowing all these things...that means it can happen again when all the information gets jammed in computers that we have no paper or stone trail. we can lose all if again.

  11. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    http://www.sacredlands.org/forgetting.htm...found this
    "Paleontology made untenable the idea that humanity, agriculture, and civilization all began at roughly the same time. History and archaeology had put it beyond doubt that agriculture and civilization were just a few thousand years old, but paleontology put it beyond doubt that humanity was millions of years old. Paleontology made it impossible to believe that Man had been born an agriculturalist and a civilization-builder. Paleontology forced us to conclude that Man had been born something else entirely -- a forager and a homeless nomad -- and this is what had been forgotten in the Great Forgetting."

    It staggers the imagination to wonder what the foundation thinkers of our culture would have written if they'd known that humans had lived perfectly well on this planet for millions of years without agriculture or civilization, if they'd known that agriculture and civilization are not remotely innate to humans. I can only conclude that the entire course of our intellectual history would have been unthinkably different from what we find in our libraries today.

    But here is one of the most amazing occurrences in all of human history. When the thinkers of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries were finally compelled to admit that the entire structure of thought in our culture had been built on a profoundly important error, absolutely nothing happened.

    It's hard to notice nothing happening. Everyone knows that. Readers of Sherlock Holmes will remember that the remarkable thing the dog did in the night was . . . nothing. And this is the remarkable thing that these thinkers did: nothing. Obviously they didn't care to do anything. They didn't care to go back to all the foundation thinkers of our culture and ask how their work would have changed if they'd known the truth about our origins. I fear the truth is that they wanted to leave things as they were. They wanted to go on forgetting . . . and that's exactly what they did."

  12. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    There are some pointers in old Hinduism texts about this but they also point to human species being more powerful to move to another dimension or planet before some of their average descent remaining under this 'great phenomenon'.

    There is no empirical proof, peer-reviewed paper for 'THE GREAT FORGETTING' as of yet. All the assumptions are just in air without any concrete relation, proof. Spiritual theorists have many theories in their sack on this phenomenon but at the end of the day proof matters.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

      Empirical evidence is a must!

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think there is, I read it a couple of months back and it is written by this, let me find it before I insist. It may take a while.

  13. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    600-1000 year old cities, temples are no doubt found in archeological research. But that doesn't mean all the mythic stories are true about Hinduism. Old Indian culture perished because of large migration, attack of foreign rulers and lack of preservation of these historical findings. Many people in India do exaggerate mythic stuff which always leaves me in question, if any powerful civilization like this ever existed they'll perish like poof ? No.

    History is always written by winners and marketers rather than normal people who prefer facts, so no doubt there are chances that many things are exaggerated. Don't be surprised if any writer posts in Wikipedia about lady gaga as beautiful queen of pop culture and our great grand children starts to believe in it.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      agree like Y chromosome guy the ADAM DNA actually was a copy cat of the EVE DNA. Man, the scientist was livid when they came out on TV with a twisted version of his discovery. The ADAM guy actually did not think the EVE DNA was important until it got attention..so he went the route of discovery channel.

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          well, i can't find the darn printout in my files...and frankly i should use the time for my real research...but this guy seems to be talking about it. even used it as a chapter title. A lot of scientists are already publicly declaring that the emerging data points to it.

          http://books.google.com/books?id=vD-2D5 … mp;f=false

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see any of his references peer-reviewed, not a single citation etc in that book. Don't quote from online books, they're not usually updated  with references/citations.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Its just a convenient way to say i'm not imagining it. and its hard to copy books, search specific pages. it's just too much work. so for purposes of forums i copy paste.

              hmm... let me check if that thing i saw is online. hold on.

              1. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I know you're not imagining that it's just that i'm hoping for empirical evidence.

                I have seen some ancient references to this phenomenon and many hindu believers call it 'reboot'(translated from local language to english). Many think of this phenomenon as 'loop' while some as moving forward.

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              well, i saw a lot of mentions of the great forgetting but i guess the one you are looking for is the credibility of the online source.


              Here it is : http://www.indiana.edu/~anthro/people/f … moran.html


              Emilio F. Moran
              Rudy Professor of Anthropology
              Professor of Environmental Sciences
              Adjunct Professor of Geography

              Director: ACT (Anthropological Center For Training and Research on Global Environmental Change)

              Co-Director: CIPEC (Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change)
              (812) 855-6182 | Email | Office Hours
              Lead Scientist, Focus 1 "Land Use Dynamics", joint IGBP/LUCC/IHDP Program
              Ph.D. in Social Anthropology, University of Florida (1975)
              M.A. in Latin American History, University of Florida (1969)
              B.A. in Spanish American Literature, Spring Hill College (1968)
              John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship 1989-1990
              President, Society for Economic Anthropology , 1990-1991,
              President, Section on Anthropology and the Environment, 1995-97,
              Fellow, Linnean Society of London 1999
              National Research Council Committee on Geographical Sciences 2004
              Chair, Anthropology Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004-2005

          2. 0
            sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nag Hammadi

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              the scrolls sandra? that's 500 BCE right. are we talking about something else?

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I thought you were talking about where the people were getting their information regarding the theory of "forgetting".  What is it that you are talking about then?

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  hmmm didn't know this. thanks.

  14. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Qwark is right on point of speciation. Wolf and mountain cats are not related on the same point though they're from same single cell species tree.

    Speaking of speciation anyone have any clue about parakeet speciation ? neutral

  15. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    I could find more ...but then, isn't that overkill? The Great Forgetting is a creeping consensus. there is also the book the Story of B which is constantly being discussed in forums now.

    1. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So you're saying prof moran has published work in great forgetting phenomenon or he just mentions in his paper ?

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        i'm saying he's not a quack and he did talk about it. so my only point is this.

        that the great forgetting is a new theory that explains the existence of certain mysterious artifacts and ruins. So even if you can't see citations of the link i provided it doesn't mean it is not an established contender for the classic idea that man's knowledge only emerged 6,000 years ago or so.

  16. matterofthought profile image60
    matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago

    The answer to your question is yes Darwins theory of evolutuion and the creation facts are contradictory and this struggle for dominance in the scieintic community(which influences are text books) is confusing. so why are we being tought in our schools something that dont match with history and scientific facts? is a question that arises if you come to the conclusion of creation. from my understanding theirs always going to be a force of skepticism to stuggle with when it comes to the matter of truth; hence are darwinian text books. but now that the perception of the universal truth is being reveled im sure that force which controls the skeptic power that supposedly found its way in our text books is going to have a new kind of struggle prepaired for us; perhaps world dominance? I mean what else would a surpresser of truth from outer space do? they see planets as sand on the sea shore and they have to disect it down to its atomic particals to reavel the potential either, also known as the quantum sea of power.but they also live by a conservation of energy law so they dont destroy the resource which they studie. they ultimatley study existance itself which is why their at war with god becuase they want to control it all. greed is why are minds arnt free. anyways check out, "unlocking the mystery of life on you tube or some other source. its a documentery of the recent discovery concerning the origin of species, and its about darwin not having the ability to see inside the living cell and the info he recieved from is studys were concluded with this handycap. but today and scence the fiftys when the electron microscope was developed we now have the abilty to comprehend the inner workings of the human cell and what they found was a sub cellular city of what is now being called molecular machines, a city of machines building themsevles from protines and reproducing all on their own. ive done further study on these sub cellular machines and found they communicat digitaly and uses lazer beams and generates their own electrical potential which is how are brain and thought process works. the cells are truly alive filled with life within that was designed and created buy a higher intellegence,God. so faith in a heavenly higher power has proved true and theirs only one his enemys try to act like him with superhuman intellegence, thats why knowledge is power. and when you study power like light electricity atomic energy you find real physical knowledge and this knowledge is endless, we cant even imagine. we live in a existance of infite possibilitys where anything is possible but their is a good and evil, a right and wrong, thing we sould and shouldnt do and we have the freedom to choose. also check out "regenerative medicine the regrowing finger" its a abc news clip about a new study in biology that can regenerate the growing effect in your body, this man cut the tip of his finger off and his bro. a biochemist sent him experimental powder and regrew his finger nail nerves and all. the millitary has invested millions to treat victims of war with lost limbs and other drastic wounds. does that sound alien and universal? the truth is out their and were not alone trust me this will be clear soon enough. read my hub called "Heaven. The truth the fallen angels dont want you to know!" for more insight. Theirs so much out their but theirs only one truth. also get familiar with einstiens theory of realitivity, its old and about time us who exists in the future to catch up to our past. and of course the holy bible is the light to your path. God bless you hope to hear from you! thanx for sharing your hub with us.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Uh huh...

    2. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ...unadulterated "prattle."
      Qwark

      1. 0
        Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        hahahaha

  17. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    people go ape shit when you say that.

  18. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bonobo-all-us.html

    the article is titled : The Bonobo in all of us. smile 

    we did not evolve from ape. we are apes.

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      True. That is the conclusion we have reached through our discussion.

  19. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Sorry, i prefer to be skeptical than saying man's knowledge 6000 years ago surpasses the level of knowledge in 2010. Lack of citation and references only shows that it's just pitched up theory based on ruins and not facts. I don't prefer to overestimate ancient civilization's knowledge than what is available to us.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well it is not surpassing. by they do have some knowledge that are sophisticated but not in the same way we are sophisticated. It's just not unga unga and me want woman, need club.

      It is sophisticated in that it is systematic and deliberate with some semblance of body of knowledge.



      for those who are lazy to look it's about this:

      Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?
      Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
      By Andrew Curry
      Photographs by Berthold Steinhilber
      Smithsonian magazine, November 2008


      Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a … z16tOEnc9K

    2. matterofthought profile image60
      matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Please read my hub and  check the facts. I'm new to hubs so i only have one. but i intend to write a hub on molecular machines. To understand that watch "unlocking the mystery of life" concerning new findings in science about evolution and creation. I think youll find we live in a sea of infinite knowledge which is why we should be skeptic but only in search for the truth of our reality. their is a thing called lies and their meant to be believed but their is also truth and i think youll see truth is stranger than fiction.

  20. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bonobos/primate.html

    "Though we don't look much like them, we humans have a lot in common with bonobos and the three other great apes—the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan. Compared to the lesser primates, such as monkeys and lemurs, we five "hominid" primates are tailless, larger-bodied, and more intelligent; we even share over 98 percent of our DNA. Yet we five great apes do differ significantly in diet, temperament, behavior, and other aspects. In this family tree, have a look at what sets us and the four other hominids apart from one another.*—Rima Chaddha

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I'm not sure what to think.

      Some sources say we are members of the "Great Apes" others say we ONLY share a common "ape-like" ancestor,  but that we (humans) are not "Great Apes."

      Whatever. All I know is that we are an "ape" of some-sort.

      1. matterofthought profile image60
        matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LETS JUST SAY THIS, IF YOU WANT TO BE A MONKEY YOU CAN! I PERFER TO BE A CHILD OF THE ONE TRUE LIVING GOD.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          what makes you think that a monkey is not a child of the living G-d?

          Check genesis day 6. first monkey, then us. same day, not before.

          1. matterofthought profile image60
            matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Becuase God didnt make monkeys in his image only man and he doesnt call animals his sons only man, thats like saying everything he created as long as its alive is his son.

            1. Woman Of Courage profile image62
              Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              matterofthought, You are right. The word of God clearly states that God made man in his image, not monkeys.

              1. 0
                china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So your god looks like a human ?

                1. matterofthought profile image60
                  matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes!

                2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  you are back! welcome china man. now where o where is sab oh?

              2. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                How strange - what is this religious nonsense doing in the "Education and Science" forum? Whether you like it or not - we are directly descended from apes. And we can prove this. Which means your beliefs are untrue. Oh dear. sad

                1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
                  Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well Mark, your right.  Darwin's theory probably is the most plausible way of explaining our very existence, but what does that have to do with disproving religion?  Don't get me wrong, I for one do believe that Darwinism is correct, but the thing is you have to keep in mind here is this.  God could've created the universe and us however the heck he wanted, so who's to say he didn't follow the exact theory of Darwin? 

                  This is something I'll never understand about atheists.  Why does science have to be a contradiction and proof that religion doesn't exist?  They say that neither has to do with one another, yet they'll often say it's definitive proof that there is no god or religion.  Personally, I always kind of viewed Darwin's theory and others like the Big Bang as more of an explanation if anything as to how god created everything.  Besides, even Steven Hawking in a documentary once said that his "Big Bang" theory was not proof to preclude the existence of a creator; rather an explanation of how the universe might've been formed.  Therefore, why does science need to be a definitive proof that god doesn't exist?  Seriously, lets step outside the box and think about this for a minute.  If your god, you could've created the universe however you saw fit?  Therefore, isn't science more of an explanation than a contradiction?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What it does disprove is the literal belief that God created us in our present form recently. Plus - once you understand how we evolved - it is extremely hard to put a hand of god into it. 4.5 billion years? With humans as the end goal? Dear me. Off hand I can't think of anything more far-fetched.

                    In any case - this is religious people coming into the "education and Science" forum and telling us we did not evolve. You tell me why there is a clash here.

                2. matterofthought profile image60
                  matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Becuase in order to comprehend the knowledge of god you must understand existance.(prov.2:1-5) In order to know god you just need to believe and ask. Math, science and education brings out the physical dimentions of reality(their simply tools to see the blue prints of existance) and what is real is endless; hence space. true knowledge and education(and thier is a true science) isnt against faith and religion. religion just means prectices and faith means believing in the truth against the lies, or in something you know is their even if you cant see it.

                3. fits3x100 profile image60
                  fits3x100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope . Mark, That is a lie. Thank Science for it's awesome unfolding of DNA. You Sir are either a Rare talking Monkey. Or you are a human.  Before current studies mapping the creation and delivery of protein building blocks by strands of DNA, we only had the example of mules or other man made cross specie breeding to suggest that the advancement of a specie could only occur in micro-evolutionary adaptations, not genetic alterations. And this is not a religious argument. The Church accepts your theory of Evolution...Theory of Evolution. Theory of Intelligent design. Theory...not empirically proven fact. Further, I'm pretty sure you frequent "Religious" forums to stir your faith too? Cracks me up! You accuse people of being self serving victims hehehe...wow....dude...turn your mirror off before  you post eh?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Too bad you do not understand the difference between scientific theory and church dogma. There is no such theory of Intelligent Design - this has been rejected by the scientific community.

                    Why even mention "The Church"? Don't you know there are lots of different churches - none of them qualified to have an opinion? Dear me. sad

              3. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Word of god ? good joke. Give me one good reason god who created man in his image will write his words for species he created. If he created man in his image, did he failed to give intelligence which he wanted to convey through his words in bible ? when faith comes into play, common sense goes to hay. lol

                1. matterofthought profile image60
                  matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Becuase God gave people free will and an intellect of experiance, meaning if they want it they have to experiance it first hand, its a intimate gesture of true existance. And God allowed ability to be endless which is where true amazement comes in, so in this vastness of endlessness he gives us the basic principles to live in peace.

            2. Cagsil profile image77
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              If your God or a God didn't make monkeys, then where did they come from?

              Matterofthought, it might be helpful if you read something besides the bible and actually used your name, for what it says.

              Any matter of thought, which develops from reading the bible, is irrational. It literally forces individual people to work harder and not smarter.

              A smart person would understand that their thoughts and actions, create what happens to them.

              A not so smart person would have trouble seeing beyond themselves, long enough, to see the consequences of the thoughts and actions they do.

              The Theory of Evolution is proven to be fact. I'm sorry, you refuse to see it. The truth of reality is that there is no god, except for those who form a belief in one. Forming a belief based on irrational conjecture is part of human nature, which remains each that they are ignorant about some part of their life. There is a difference in knowing(wisdom discerned truth) and having a belief.

            3. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              we can take this discussion in another forum and i will prove to you you're not understanding what you're saying...but meantime. please. go to a bookstore and buy a primer on evolution.

        2. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LOLOLOLOLO

        3. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Child with anger or caps lock on ?

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            he doesn't read the bible, apparently

        4. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Matter:
          One thing I hate is a screamer (using all caps)!
          Knock it off!
          You've lost me permanently!
          Qwark

        5. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Matterfothought, you have the right to believe whatever you want.

          However, nobody in here seems to be buying what you're selling. So, why don't you... ahem... move along.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol I love it here! G-d save me! lol gotta work...please let the fun end.

          2. matterofthought profile image60
            matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I see that.  and the caps was to get attention and i got but thank you for the time, one thing is for sure, people sound confused...

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        those people are in denial. even the bible says we were created on the SAME DAY along with cattle

  21. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Agree.

  22. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    So if you beleive we evolved from primates, how come we are still not evolving?

    A monkey can be trained ( by a human)to buy a bus ticket and board a bus ,but he will never have any idea why hes doing it wink and consider this you, you and I have the ability to reason, organise a meeting, influence more than one person at a time,multi-task, cry n talk at the same time.
    We can change our habits, do nothing, do everything and even though some might say we dont know what the hell we are doing sometime, at some point we will. I find it quite cool that their are 'similarities',right down to cells and dna, but that is not and will never be 'same'

    All of these things ( and I only mentioned some) separate us from animals,so while some things are similar ,the main differences are not.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We are still evolving. You are an animal. You must be very angry.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Within the same species we evolve, but an apple doesnt become a pear smile

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ayayay...a priobiotic juice became a woman talking this way.

        2. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Who said it did? I see you are angry that the facts prove we evolved from other species.

          Oh dear. lol

        3. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Of course an apple doesn't become a pear. We're talking about EVOLUTION not magic.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            you got me curious about that...can an apple evolve into a pear? What is the genus of the apple and pear i wonder? They are both fruit. they both have multiple seeds and so on. they may have had the same ancestor.

        4. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So what do you expect speciation overnight in front of your eyes in order to prove evolution ?

      2. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Mark:
        Of course we are!!!
        Where do folks come up with this kind of nonsense?
        Self imposed ignorance?
        Qwark

      3. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        On the contrary Im a happy human

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Odd. Humans are animals. Sorry you are so angry that science proves you are an animal. sad

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't question that, you look happy...on the other hand Mark looks rich. lol

          don't...please don't do this to yourself. don't prattle belief in an intellectual discussion, it makes us women look bad.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am rich. smile

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              you do look it! with the european turtle neck and all. lol

    2. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Eagle:
      "... how come we are still not evolving?"
      Why do you think we humans are not evolving?
      Why would you say that?
      Qwark

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well there is still an ape, a snake, a fish, a uni-cellular thing swimming. we will die out someday and something else will say it evolved from us...mwahahahaha!

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe they already think that ,but are keeping quiet about it  lol
          sorry couldnt resist...

          Hi ceciliabeltran ,nice to meet you

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            nice to meet you too!

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          This isn't quite the way that evolution works.

          There are still fish out there from millions of years ago - i have the spelling wrong, but it's called a "living fossil", and one is the Cyleocanth (or something).

          Things can evolve from one species to another... and the original species still survives. For example, wolves and dogs. Plantains and bananas.

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Qwark  why do you say that ?
        I already said my bit up there

        And if I dont agree with you ( or anyone else) dont say Im ignorant
        just relax lol

        The species evolve, fish ,primates, humans etc ,but they dont cross over ,or the freaks from certain cross breeds cannot reproduce ie donkey&horse=ass=jackass, well the last guy cant reproduce.
        Why not?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good grief! sad Did god dunnit ?

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            god dun it mark, run for the hills...lol

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I can answer that but then it will be too boring. Basic genetics will help you on this one.

        3. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "So if you beleive we evolved from primates, how come we are still not evolving?" -Eaglekiwi

          We are still evolving. We are evolving all the time. Who ever said that we weren't (besides you and your ilk)?

          "A monkey can be trained ( by a human)to buy a bus ticket and board a bus ,but he will never have any idea why hes doing it wink and consider this you, you and I have the ability to reason, organise a meeting, influence more than one person at a time,multi-task, cry n talk at the same time." - Eaglekiwi

          The ability to "problem solve" is not uniquely a human trait. Nor is organization a skill that only we poses (certain whale species come to mind).

          "All of these things ( and I only mentioned some) separate us from animals,so while some things are similar ,the main differences are not.' - Eaglekiwi

          The fact is... we ARE animals. Period. Any professor of biology will tell you the same.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            we are evolving NOW. every day our brain changes, we evolve. but is it visible evolution. the races are evolving apart not towards one mega race. soon me asian chick will be some other creature than say...mark knowles

          2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The FACT is we are not Animals.

            And I do understand what evolution means!

            I believe we were created by intelligent design and those FACTS surround us all daily. We surely do not need a sunset or  the birth of a baby to be confirmed by a professor of biology.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol lol

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              we are animals but we are more evolved in terms of intelligence that we can measure with our intelligence but evidence is pointing to other animals that have superior intelligence but since we do not share the same measures, we cannot tell for sure.

            3. 0
              Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oy!
              Simply saying that we're not animals doesn't make it true.

              "Humans, known taxonomically as Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"), are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family."

              My source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

              Evolution is:

              "Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction."

              My source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

              1. qwark profile image61
                qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Jake:
                Too many big words for her, I think.
                Besides, if it isn't biblical in foundation, it can't be factual.
                Qwark   smile

                1. 0
                  Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL

                  True.

            4. 0
              Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And also you seem to be suggesting that a "sunset" or a baby being born is supposed to convince me that there is a God, and his son is Jesus Christ, and I have to accept his blood-sacrifice or be damned for eternity?

              Your logic is truly astounding!!! (sarcasm, BTW)

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                easy, she was speaking in metaphors. she's just saying natural law doesn't need proof.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No - she was speaking literally. She does not think in metaphors - it is real. Real! LOL

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    she is sleeptaking, speaking in metaphors but does not know it.

          3. matterofthought profile image60
            matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If were animals why do we naturally live in a house with carpeting,  and not  the jungle. why dont we eat off the floor. why the need for the table and what is civilization mean if were simply wild and uneducated. Isnt that what seperates us from the everyday of animal behavior? now dont get me wrong, with the power of knowledge such as genetic engineering im sure you can create a species of an intellectual wolf man if you want. (remeber i believe in endless possibilitys) and im sure man can act like an animal if he wants but in genesis, it says god said now man is like us,knowing the knowledge of good and evil, so i guess its knowledge that makes the difference, so see, if you want to be a monkey you can be, isnt god great, you can be what ever you put your mind to its simply a matter of thought!

        4. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "The species evolve, fish ,primates, humans etc ,but they dont cross over ,or the freaks from certain cross breeds cannot reproduce ie donkey&horse=ass=jackass, well the last guy cant reproduce.
          Why not?"
          - Eaglekiwi

          This statement shows that you don't know anything about how evolution ACTUALLY works.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            easy, she's a happy human. she's just pushing mark's buttons.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Only incidentally. She really thinks we did not evolve becoz god sed so. sad

              The fact that this pushes my buttons is not why she thinks this.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol you are very very funny naughty man.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I know, sad

        5. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Eagle:
          My statement ref. "self imposed ignorance" stands.
          You just made a comment that has nothing to do with the laws of natural selection and evolution.
          Pls!
          Sit down with a cuppa coffee or tea...or..whatever, lay your bible down, (I know it's difficult for ya) and study Darwins theory of evolution. Your understanding of it seems to very limited (I'm assuming you have attempted to understand it.) I may be wrong.
          Man is PROFOUNDLY involved in his evolution! The processes of evolution on complex forms of life, are very very slow. Tens of thousands of years may pass before a noticeable change takes place.
          Evolution is ineradicable and eternal. You don't seem to realize this fact!
          Qwark

  23. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    ALSO:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=FGayyV … mp;f=false

    The Vedas Indus sarasvati civilizations...

    the puma punku in bolivia which is 19,000 years old and so on.


    http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/boliviapumapunka.htm

  24. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    I know when Mark steps up to the plate ,I must have said something right hehe smile nice to see you again,hope youre still fighting fit and off the ciggies smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      14 months no smoking. Lost 41 pounds after gaining 35 when I quit. Feel good. smile Still want to smoke though. Not sure when that goes away.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well how long have you been smoking. your cells are probably still covered in nicotine. you'll know the craving will stop after you get all these weird immuno problems and then past that, the craving will stop which means it is no longer in your bloodstream.  that means your cells have regenerated their own natural coating. eat lots of blueberries. did a nicotine delivery patch med kit way back in my pharma days.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Smoked 35 years. LOL

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            yay...the craving is there because you still have it in your bloodstream. that's all you'll get to the sniffles and the boils and then after that..maybe a few months. it's gone.

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Mark
        Wow thats impressive ,well done on staying smoke-free!

  25. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Atleast i'll never say helpless kitty who failed to save his a-- on cross is going to be my savior. Thank galactus for that big flaw in wanna-be son of god. wink

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Mahesh? what is it with you and galactus?

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        He's going to save me from all sins lol

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol guys just stop being so funny...I may never leave and I have a deadline...yikes gotta go. bye!

  26. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Prove it before claiming it as fact.



    big_smile



    That's not proof of what you believe that's just denial without proofs.

  27. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    I don't know about you but I'm loving Jake. Looking at his pretty face. lol

    1. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ha Ha! "Pretty face," eh? That's not something I hear too often. LOL.

      1. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jake:
        We all know this is a "virtual" world   lol
        You could be a chubby 4'5" toothless troll that just crawled out from under a bridge and with a wave of your Harry Potter wand, created a picture that would pls Cecilia...eh?
        You trolls are tricky!  lol

        Qwark smile

        1. 0
          Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          True, I am a 4'5" toothless troll.

          However, I don't live under a bridge. I live in a swamp.

          You bastard.

          LOL.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            you covered your face lol

          2. qwark profile image61
            qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I've been called worse...lol

            Just don't call me "late-for-supper!" I'll fight over that one!  lol
            Qwark

  28. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    I GOTTA GO!

  29. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Jake, i really find it hard to convince myself that guy who died on cross was son of entity which created things like meteors, supernova, volcano and his son failed to even save his life. I mean in what sense he died for us ?  big_smile For me it looks like helpless guy unable to convince people that he failed to save his life and want people to believe that he died for them.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      different genres...why bother.

    2. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sky:
      Only a fool would test the authority of Rome!
      The punishment du jour was crucifixion.
      Foolish boy!
      Qwark

      I'm heading for the gym...ttyl  smile

    3. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sky:

      I find it hard to believe as well... that's why I don't. wink

    4. 0
      Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There were a lot of guys running around at the time claiming to be the messiah. A veritable plague of "messiahs."

      Roman officials did not go around executing them for simply claiming to be the Jewish messiah. These were matters concerning a small sub-section of their empire and they would not have interfered with it.

      Also, the story of Pontious Pilot (spelling?), is total garbage. No roman official would have allowed Barabas - a known murderer - go free in order to "make room" for the Christ character.

      Honestly, the whole story is probably complete fiction.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        actually barabas was not a mere murderer, he was a zealot, a kind of political prisoner. and the crime of Jesus was sorcery but also that he was a dangerous political enemy of the state because he was from the house of david. people were almost going to crown him king. so pontius pilate executed him for political reasons.the essenes and the pharasees were not seeing eye to eye in the same way as protestants and catholics were. so there is some historical basis based on the politics that existed in those days. but the early christian  church credited words, "miracles" of maybe three jewish luminaries into one. there is enoch, that guy disappeared from history and then there is james the brother. some masonic beliefs claim that he too was crucified.

    5. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jake ..The reason Jesus died was for us,he took the sin of the whole world upon himself , his blood was shed ( the old laws required the blood of a lamb) so of course God could have spared him ,but that would have defeated his whole plan of redemption .

      That is why only Jesus was the sacrifice- but anyway ,many didnt believe even way back then ,so you are not alone in your thinking. It was contentious issue then too, and those early Christians and Unbelievers were there!

      However the word of God has never changed in 2000 years, and although there is always much to debate ,what if its all true,what if  someone really did create me, knows my name and knows my future, what if its all true and He really does care.

      Sometimes you just know ,that you know something, and I hope you continue to question and search for your own truth to lifes questions.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        eagle, there is nothing wrong with believing in salvation. it does something to people and inspires them in some way. But please do not invent facts. The bible has changed constantly because it has been translated back and forth from several semitic languages then to greek to hebrew then to german was it, then latin and so and so forth. It does not change that it is a powerful set of books that motivates people to do great things and horrible things. but do not invent facts.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes ,inspires them in great ways and no I do not invent facts ,perhaps I assumed the statement would have been taken generally as I have taken several points made here.
          Of course we have progressed from tablets of stone -sorry if you misunderstood me.

          The word ,essence,spirit of the law-(Gods word) not necessarily all of the added/edited scrolls etc, has  increased/changed or dare I say evolved to reveal more etc.
          I dont wish to debate what was discovered where, and who wrote what when,because to me although its all very interesting  ,but kinda 'heady'( al religious sanhedrin holier than thou rheteric  , I understand God to be more concerned with the heart of man and woman  ultimately:)

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            it is just very counterproductive to cross genres.

            I mean, I could have long conversations with you about meaning but when you interject
            metaphoric or if you prefer spiritual discussions on an obviously scholarly and academic discussion, you just lose your cred.

            I hate it when the left-brainers do it. It's just pointless, discussing G-d as a human spiritual experience to counteract empirical data and debate and vice versa.

            |Did we evolve, no G-d made us? G-d didn't make us, we evolved. there is no G-d. the bible says so. But you're stupid, scientific evidence says this and this and this.but the word of G-d is holy..." I mean c'mon guys.

            stick to the genre. like for instance:

            "Did we evolve? No because that theory has loopholes. like what? like you are still a cro-magnon. and you are an earthworm.earthworms evolved from the very first nano-type snake proteins, so that means i'm ahead of you. but you're still an earthworm and as a crogmagnon i can eat you"

            Or

            "G-d is a positive force in my life? But G-d has inspired many horrible crimes against humanity. that would be humanity inspiring horrible crimes against humanity using G-d as an excuse. G-d has inspired great works of art and the judicial system"

            see same genre...no pointless discussion...(well except for the cromagnon bit)

      2. Woman Of Courage profile image62
        Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Eaglekiwi, I love your insightful responses! smile

      3. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Flaw. If jesus is son of god then death, free will, sin doesn't apply to him. Feel free to add delusion stories if you wish. But any powerful entity behind things like - death, free will and sin will teach his son how to work on it instead of letting it die on cross like helpless kitty. If god gets killed in video game with god mode on then he's not god-simple. wink

        1. matterofthought profile image60
          matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Your missing the point, God is immortal and can experiance what ever he wants. he also lives by rules and love and to make his point of how much he loves us he experianced the worst so we could be forgiven for not listening to his rules, under what he went through for us, meaning Jesus the image of the invisible God got the pass and now he can give it to who loves him, all becuase he experianced the crucifix. everything applys to everything else, (action and reaction) its a matter of love in the heart that god will wipe are stain of sin away.

      4. 0
        Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Eaglekiwi:

        You assume that the Bible is the inspired word of God. You don't have any proof that it is. You simply say, "I know it in my heart to be true." That doesn't mean diddly squat to me.

        Give me one, single shred of empirical evidence to support your claims. Something concrete.

        You don't have it.

        What you have is a "feeling" that God exists and that Jesus is his son.
        That may work for you but that doesn't work for me.

        Anyway, I appreciate your being a nice person and all (I'm sure you're a wonderful lady), but your beliefs don't make any sense to me.

        Also, as far as Pascal's Wager is concerned (the question: "What if you're wrong?") I would like to ask you the same: what if you're wrong? What if Islam is the correct religion? Or Hinduism?

        The bottom line is this: When you understand why you reject all other gods, you'll understand why I reject YOURS.

        1. 61
          Sword of Fireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Take the word Genesis. Separate the first four letters from the last three, now reverse one "S" Super impose the two "s" over the eye. There is the Greek symbol of the Physician/w the staff of life, the two snakes represent the double helix of DNA. Now look at the first four letters. Consider that Eve's creation is a tale of cloning, complete w/ rib bone marrow for a growth medium. The entire first page is a virtual snapshot of the human psyche. Positive and negative, darkness and light,(the Id, the Ego, the conscious and subconscious) Do you seriously think this is a result of my very creative interpretation? Do you seriously think that Moses, even though educated in th e house of Pharoah, was capable of doing that himself. And Coincidence is non scientific BS and falling back on it is evidence of a lack of knowledge about cause and effect.

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You summed up 'pseudoscience for dummies' book in this small witty reply.  smile

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Mahesh, it does not mean that those coincidences do not exist. They are observations. Pseudo-science is using science talk as a reason to believe something that cannot be tested or confirmed.

              If you study world mythology there are many things out there that will make you think. I have seen old ruins that have very very sharp edges not at all like those found in europe. They really look impossible to do with paleolithic tools. But does that mean they are alien? No. There is no proof that they made by aliens. It does however make you wonder two things. 1. Did we have a kind of technological know-how we forgot about? It's possible, I mean we have achieved so much knowledge in two centuries alone.  2. Were there more advanced beings who camped out here for a while=improbable, but who knows.

              Thinking that we may have achieved some level of intellectual sophistication and forgot it is an observation. Thinking that the aliens did it is pseudo science. One has evidence, the other has fantasies particularly when the appearance of aliens here on earth is just about as dodgy as fairies and elves. But technology however, you can observe that. Primitive batteries, irrigation systems, architectural feats. The OP is right, we might have to rethink the timeline.  we are evolving but maybe we evolved earlier than we thought. Boskops have huge brains, even larger than ours but they died out. Could they be the people that figured these things out? we did, and most of us are morons.

              But aliens...thats pseudo science because first you have to catch one.

          2. 0
            Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            To borrow a phrase from a friend:

            "unadulterated prattle."

        2. matterofthought profile image60
          matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Proof  jake;
          The holy bible says are lives are made of light, John 1:4, a phyisicist by the name of max planck discovered the mathmatical formula(E=hv) for the radiant energy in a human body which he called the smallest level of this energy a quanta. Albert Einstien was inspired by max plancks findings and used his theory of individual spheres of energy instead of steady waves and discovered what sun light was made of which he called a single level of this energy a photon, and found that quantas and photons are highly related, and the only difference between them is their source. quantas come from human energy and photons come from the suns energy. so see, modern science confirms that we are made up of radiant heat energy also known as light,also its a common fact that our brains work by electricity which is another form of what? light. how do you soppose when we shut are eyes we can still see the dark if their isnt a light inside us? something our 2000 year old bible says john 1:4

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            different genre...different genre...

            1. matterofthought profile image60
              matterofthoughtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Planck died 1947. Einstien died 1955.

          2. 0
            Jake Gene Barnesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            John 1:4 (NIV)

            "In him was life, and that life was the light of men."

            However, this is just one translation.

            Here is another:

            John 1:4 (NLT)

            "The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone."

            And another:

            John 1:4 (ISV)

            "In him was life, and that life brought light to humanity."

            So, hopefully you can see how your "proof" is - quite simply - not proof at all.  You took a vague piece of scripture with MANY different meanings and MANY different translations, and then tried to make it fit with a very specific field of science.

            Your attempt to "distort" the verse to fit with what is scientifically accurate is like a toddler trying to force a puzzle piece where it doesn't go.

            Try again.

    6. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

      ahhhh....i gotta go.

    7. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

      stories evolve in the same way life does.

    8. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

      now back to evolution!

    9. hanijane profile image59
      hanijaneposted 6 years ago

      There is a great book called Sent To Earth by Micheal H. Brown. It is a fantastic read and relates to what you have written.... You should check it out asap.

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Words evolved that way too. The bible started out with ten commandments. It too evolved over time. Our time sense may be distorted. Certain truths we hold to in our presence science, tends to ignore facts developed in adjacent, or seemingly unrelated disciplines. The fact is this. Without a "marriage between our sciences and our spiritual beliefs, there will be no unified theory that holds water for any more than a decade.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          that's like a major blanket statement that requires so much support.

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            OK. Here ya go. The first sound s we made as animals were simple vowels or consonant type sounds. The very same that babies use in their first vocalizations. Words, at one point consisted of simple letter sounds with specific assigned "values". Primordial language. Written language evolved in much the same way. Closest written language to the primordial first is actually pre-sumerian in historical placement and seems to have connections to the development of the first runes. (My particular discipline) This is how my research has progressed.  On my statement about the ten commandments and evolution. Moses didn't bring a Book down. He brought ten general rules that are certainly interrelated. The rest of the book was written around that event, over time. Quite a bit of time, completing the Old testament and culminating with the new. Evolution of the philosophy. The facts that have previously overlooked some very important Spiritual aspects to our reality, is evidenced on the first page of the book called Genesis. Even the word itself suggests that we aren't seeing it clearly. I write as Sword Of Fire also. Different names, different evolutions. Same message, just a different aspect. There is more of the mystery of Man to be solved. Now look what you made me do. All these words, and I merely repeated myself, and after the nice things I said. Did I tweak your nose somehow? If so, I apologize sincerely.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What is this religious nonsense doing in the "Education and Science" forum?

              Vowels or consonants huh? What are the alternatives. lol Didn't know they had writing in those days either. lol Discipline? Research? What are you talking about? Moses didn't bring anything down. And simply restating your fact-free assertions is not exactly convincing anyone of anything.

              1. Druid Dude profile image60
                Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Do you know anything about linguistic stocks? Global language patterns? Obviously you are  not, as your statement suggests Cornell University Studies done in the SIXTIES, for criminy sake! Read some books, man! And denial of Moses and the founding of Israel is pretty insulting to certain people. Such disrespect for others makes me wonder why some here hold you in such high regard. No accounting for tastes.

                1. Druid Dude profile image60
                  Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Besides, my original statement said that everything involved EVOLVED, which pretty basic and widely accepted scientific thought as backed up by the archaeological evidence that has been uncovered across the globe. Obviously not your forte'. Kinda like a VW mechanic applying for a job at NASA as a rocket scientist. smile

                2. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Denial of Moses? Of course I deny Moses coming down off a mountain with the Word of God for the Chosen People. Why on earth would anyone be offended that I do not believe that?

                  I asked why you are bringing this religious nonsense into a Science forum. And calling runes a discipline? Which you have "researched."

                  Dear me. sad

                  1. Druid Dude profile image60
                    Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No one would be offended that you don't believe. Why are you so often offended that they do? Just being arrogant?

                    1. Druid Dude profile image60
                      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      AND I REITERATE: I simply said that everything evolves, including spirtual thought. The evidence is right there, no further than your keyboard. Knowledge is power. So go get it.

                    2. Mark Knowles profile image59
                      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Why is having an opinion being arrogant? You quite clearly said I was offending peopel "And denial of Moses and the founding of Israel is pretty insulting to certain people."

                      Now you didn't say that?

                      I have no idea who founded Israel - but I am pretty sure it wasn't some guy who parted the Red Sea with a stick and was handed instructions from God.

                      I was just asking why you felt the need to bring your religious nonsense into a Science forum - that is all. And your version of "evolution" is not the same as biological evolution. We can measure that. wink

                      Dear me. sad

                  2. Shahid Bukhari profile image59
                    Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Mark

                    Moses, did !

                    Believe, you will, if only you Knew ... and to Know, you first have to Believe ...
                    you do not go to Law School, without first going through the high School ... can you ?

                    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Please do not insult my intelligence.

                      Reasoning - can you do it?

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              i was stating a fact, not disagreeing.

    10. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago

      I don't understand how people don't believe in evolution.....

      I also don't understand how evolution de-merits the idea of a creator.

      1. Shahid Bukhari profile image59
        Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You understand correctly ... but do also learn the Truth of  Reality.

        1. pisean282311 profile image58
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          truth is that all people consider their conviction to be truth...

      2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is my general position as well.

        However, with all this new archaeological discovery, I think there are serious pieces to both theories that are completely unknown to us.

    11. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

      Religious people often feel they are disrespected in the Christian Living subforum, and I tend to agree.

      But this is the archeology subforum, so I would argue the reverse applies.  How about actually discussing some actual archeology here instead of just vague illusions to a continent in which something (?) may have been found.

    12. 60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

      The problem with Darwin's Theory is that it's primary purpose was to debunk a common belief of his time. One he happened to disagree with. His studies were not targeted to getting the answers but rather proving an idea to be incorrect. That's just bad science. So yes, it definitely has "Clouded" our judgment.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This simply isn't true in the slightest, and suggests to me you have not read very much of Darwin's work.

        Darwin was a Victorian naturalist who deliberately did not extned his extensive research and resulting theories to humans out of respect for the church.

        1. 60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "I HOPE I DID A GOOD JOB AT DESTROYING GOD" Darwin.

          1. 60
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It was more fear than respect.

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Re: "I HOPE I DID A GOOD JOB AT DESTROYING GOD"

              Can we have a citation or source for that please?  Because Google gives zero results for it, and pretty much the full written and contemporously-recorded spoken words of Darwin are online.  The only thing even close is on a Hub and is not referenced.

              I, personally, don't think he ever said it.  But I would be happy to see proof (a primary source known to be the words of Darwin himself) and thus change my mind.

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Of course he didn't say it just like Jesus didn't say god is real. lol

              2. 0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                even if he did say it, I'd like to see the context

              3. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I Googled the quote, and this is what I got;

                http://hubpages.com/hub/Darwin-and-Evolution
                The very first link, to more than 1,000,000 links listed.

                Now, can we move pass this quote thing?  I mean, how do we know he really said that?  Were you there? Was James there?  No- none of us were there, so there is no way of knowing whether he said it or not.  And so what, if he did say it? 

                It is my understanding that Darwin was an Agnostic.  So, him saying something like that, doesn't even sound right.  If he was an atheist, sure.  But, it is my understanding that Darwin simply felt there was no evidence or proof of God, as reflected in the bible, and he defined himself as an Agnostic for feeling this way.  Which is fine. 

                Whether he was a Jesus freak like me, or an Atheist like Mark Knowles, shouldn't matter.  It is his work and legacy that matters.  Eisenstein was a Jew.  After he made his discoveries, he continued to practice Judaism.  So are we not to take Albert seriously, just because he believed in a "Super being?"  I hardly think not.

                That's like discrediting Alexander Great as a military superman, because he was an open bisexual. 

                Whether Darwin said this or not, I mean who really cares?  How does his words effect his remarkable discovery?  They don't.

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I asked for a reference to a reliable source of Darwins words.  The full phrase is actually nowhere on the internet, a close one is on a hub and likewise unreferenced.

                  This is a science and education forum, asserions of fact need to be supported by an appropriate reference.  This one is not.  In fact the diction is such that no Victorian man would have said this, let alone darwin.

                  We can end the debate when people acknowledge Darwin did not say, write or in anyway utter those words.  They are part of a nasty smear campaign that mischaracterises the man's work and thoughts.

                  1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hit the google link.  I googled the full phrase.  So I don't know what you're talking about. 

                    More importantly, I don't care.  So what if he said it?  What does it prove?

                    I don't even know who listed the quote in this thread.  But what it has to do with the Darwin's theory, or anything we have moved onto is beyond me.  Useless banter.  And why you feel the need to wait for the author of the sentence to give you a link, is pointless. 

                    Moreover, the fact that I tried to provide you with that information, in which I succeeded in doing.........., and you still aren't satisfied is comical.

                    Why is it so important to you?

                    1. 0
                      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      I looked on Google. I found only the hub that came up with this phrase (without a source).  Everything else did not have this phrase or anything similar.  Don't know what you're talking about.

                      I want to know too.  Why are being so stroppy about a reasonable request?

          2. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Capitals doesn't make it true, neither does repitition.

          3. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It is sad to see the lengths some will go to in order to support their belief systems. sad

    13. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago

      No, it was already clouded, and still is. smile

    14. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

      Every single thing we know is 'a theory'.  So i am not sure what stating that acheives other than drawing attention the the fact that you can't convincing absolutely everyone of any particular fact, no matter how obvious, rational and supported by ample evidence.

      Still waiting for a reference on that "Darwin" quote.  If there isn't one, a fitting penance for bearing false witness would be to read 'The Origin of Species'.  You can get it for free online.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't mind some reputable references to a TV program that claimed some "recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa" that might have clouded our judgment about the facts we have.

      2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But don't you think it is important to continue to question "conventional thought?"

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Of coure, but I don't see how that is related to what I said.  There is a big difference between questioning whether pet ownership is good for health, for example, and questioning whether the earth goes around the sun.

    15. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

      What if he did say it?

      So much for the nasty smear campaign theory.roll

      The man was an incredible man, and a genius.  His work speak volumes, and that work will live on through out history and time.  I don't think we need to worry about the "maybe" of his "possible" words.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I mean a references, a citation.  And I don't have to prove he didnlt say it, you have to prove he did.

        A citation is a source that is reliable.  You gave me "some guy on a the internet said it" and "the words in this sentence when not searched as a phrase ecist online".  That doesn't count.

        If you don't know what a recognised citation is (e.g. a primary source or peer-reviewed secondary source) I suggest finding out.

        Let me try this.  If I write a hub saying jesus was a squirrel and publish it, does that make it true? 

        And I think that if the false quote was true it would send ripples around the world and utterly reshape what we think of the man and his work, so yes--it would be important.

        But in terms of it just being a lie used to discredit someone, it is only important on this thread and I am calling people on it.  Criticise Darwin all you want, have any opinion you want, but you can't have your own facts.

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          agree with you.  This "quote" is on James Watkins hub on darwin & evolution.  He hasn't said where he supposedly got it from.  There's enough lies out there already by the god squad

        2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
          IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have to prove he said it, I didn't say he did. I didn't list the quote in the first place. Someone else did.  You kept asking them for a link, and they were not responding to you.  So to get you to stop about the link, and to move onto something else, I thoughtfully tried to humor you.

          I don't need to prove a darn thing to you.  I never said he said it.  Thank you very much though, I guess.  What else does one say when they've been wrongly accused?  You've just accused the wrong person, you do know this by now?

          Whatever..., and I never criticized Darwin.  You're clearly confused on who you're chatting with.  Try reading all my posts, like I have carefully read yours- and you might learn a thing or two.  It sure would make it a lot nicer and easier.  And........., you'd soon learn wonderful things like how I'm NOT the one who posted the quote!  Did I mention that I didn't post the quote, and that you're mistaken on your banter with me?  WoW!!  I'm glad we've cleared that one up.

          So furthermore:

          I like Darwin, and think he was onto something great.  So why you think I am criticizing clearly tells me you're really confused.roll  Again- probably because you didn't read all my posts.

          Another thing- you made a claim that Google didn't have a single hit on the quote.  Well that wasn't true.  I don't even think you really tried Googling the quote. But that's just my opinion.  I Googled the entire quote and got over a million hits.  The entire statement.  You said you got nothing.  Well...., I even provided you with the direct link.  Again- hoping you would move on.  But then again, you didn't.  So here we are.


          What gives? Are we ready to move on yet?wink

          1. 0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            wow, that was harsh. Take a chill pill

            1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
              IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Did I forget to sugar coat the facts so it met with your approval?  I'm sorry, I haven't been grocery shopping this week.  My bad.

              1. 0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No sugar-coating needed.  Truth is good, preferably not arsenic-coated.

    16. About-The-Home profile image60
      About-The-Homeposted 6 years ago

      Why should an atheist go to a religious forum? We are atheists because the more science discovers, the less need there is for an explanation involving a god (which god would you like to choose?).

      A religious forum is for those misguided individuals who believe in angels.

      "Darwin's Evolution Theory" hasn't clouded any scientist's or atheist's judgements. The only judgement that is cloudy is that of the religionists and the mad alienists. I suggest they take there silly religious opinions to the religious forum.

      1. 0
        AWBClarkeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Some atheists (about 7 of them) came to a religious forum I was at about a year ago on Revelation.  After the program, they stayed around and we talked about different things.  We had a good discussion/dialogue.  Just because one considers himself an atheist or evolutionist, doesn't mean he can't dialogue with or ask questions of a person who is considered religious.

    17. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

      I have no idea what point the hippo birth is meant to be illustrating.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't either!  Unless he was suggesting a baby hippo was not fit and therefore somehow managed to survive?  Doesn't make sense to me though!

    18. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

      Here Randy for a generalization on how limestone is made, according to a Dr.Steven A. Austin, Ph.D

      SOLUTION OF LIMESTONE

      Solution cave chemistry can be simply stated: limestone and dolostone, the host rocks for most caves, are dissolved by natural acids (carbonic, sulfuric, and various organic acids) which occur in groundwater. Calcite (CaCO3), the principal mineral comprising limestone, is dissolved in the presence of acid to produce calcium ion (Ca++) and bicarbonate ion (HCO3_). Dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2], the most important mineral in dolostone, is dissolved by acid to produce calcium ion (Ca++), magnesium ion (Mg++), and bicarbonate ions (HCO3_ ). If the acid is able to flow through the rock, ions will be removed and a cavity or solution conduit will form.

      He also states that limestone in these caves are formed by (1) caves formed by "pressure or flow."  Hence, pooling or flooding could contribute to the formations, since pooling and flooding involve pressure levels and flow rates.

      I think there is something to be said about the findings.  Do they prove the Great flood of Noah happened.  No.  Do they provide proof positive that Noah existed- NO!  I personally don't think Noah existed.  That's not what I'm trying to prove or disprove.  Who cares about Noah and his flood.  All I'm saying is that I think there is a large amount of data that is missing from our data banks, and that maybe we've become too dependent on 1 theory, and have stopped searching for entire truth.  I think Darwin's evolution theory has clouded our judgments.  I think he was onto something, but, I don't think he found the complete answer.  Thus it was intended to be a workable hypothesis, growing momentum overtime.  But I think it has stalled out.  Leaving gapping holes in our history.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that science is still discovering things about the past millions of years. 

        Most limestone is composed of the remains of ocean organisms.  The minerals from their bodies slowly sink to the ocean floor in shallow seas.  Even a thin layer of limestone may take millions of years to form. 

        A scenario, such as you have discussed earlier, would not be connected to a Biblical flood nor point to anything which indicates the canyon was formed by anything other than erosion over the course of millions of years.

    19. Hugh Williamson profile image88
      Hugh Williamsonposted 6 years ago

      Noah discovers evolution...


      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4223144_f248.jpg

    20. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

      Um, scientifically everything is a theory, even gravity.  Saying something is a theory doesn't imply either that it is true, or that it is in doubt--only that it is subject to scientific investigation.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I wish we were doing more of that on this particular topic.  That's my problem with evolutionary theory, it has been surpassed by new archaeological data.  Making the old theory somewhat out dated so to speak.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree.  You keep mentioning new data.  What new data?

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The mine discovery, the sunken city in India......., that new data.

    21. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

      Okay, so can you tell me how that is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory?

    22. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

      In any scientific debate I have been in someone who tried to make up their own facts caught hell for it--generally until the 'fessed up or slunk away.

      But back to the initial topic.  The evidence shows our ancestors were very clever.  Given that evolution is very gradual and modern humans are very clever indeed, I don't see a problem there.  Intelligence is not wholey about technology.  Modern humans are all very clever indeed and not all technologically advance.  Ergo ancestral species who were not technologically advances could also have been very clever.

      1. 0
        AWBClarkeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Clever yes, but the evolutionary time line and the present findings are not congruent because we have been told there weren't any "cities" back then.

    23. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago

      If humans are older than ten thousand years, then humans must have evolved because in the six thousands or so years that history has been recorded they didn't make much progress.

      Even today we still have tribes of very primitive humans.
      I don't think that it matters how we got here, it is more important as to what we are doing here now.

      Unfortunately, we are not doing a lot.

    24. thisisoli profile image63
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago

      Is the grand canyon a failed continental fracture, or a glacial/extinct river path?

      For instance the image of the grand canyon resembles the rock structure of a compressed clacial path, but not so much the course of a river. With a continental fracture you would expect large amounts of volcanic activity, even on a failed fault line.

      6 thousand years is absolutely nothing in evolutionary terms.  You have to think in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years for even small changes.

      The first evolutionary jumps spanned a huge amount of time, I think it is in the tens if not hundreds of billions of years (It has been a long time since I researched this) so you really need to adapt your way of thinking. It is hard to compare time, but i you take you life and then imagine what it would be like doubled, or tripled, and then try and consider a billion multiple increment, you might just be able to try and get it in to perspective.

      If you can claim that evolution is preventing us from seeing the truth, what does that say about religion?

      Science asks us to question a theory, it infact demands scientist to not only understand suggested theories, but to challenge them.  Where as religion refuses to accept any suggested advancement simply because it conflicts with religious doctrine, science wants exploration and experimentation.

      While I cannot deny that scientists judgement can be clouded by established fact, and there can even be elitist scientific bodies which sometimes dismiss new theories, the majority of the scientific community is malleable and encourages to question the world around us, establishing proof and data, rather than blindly following a book which even most Christians don't truly believe in.

      (Any christian who says that the Bible should not be taken litteraly is no longer Christian, Jesus's Divinity is the foundation of Christianity, if he was not divine, the Jewish were right, sorry.)

    25. 0
      AWBClarkeposted 5 years ago

      Intimatevolotion, this forum you started was very educational. Thank you.  I have been asking myself a similar question based on giant skulls being found as well as numerous underwater cities around the world. I echo your question because I don't get a sense that the researcher-masses are not interested in digging deeper into questioning, uncovering, or explaining these.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where are these numerous underwater cities please? I am certain we can generate some serious research money to delve deeper into these. In fact - I can guarantee it.

        1. DreC profile image61
          DreCposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Check out Lake Titicaca, Dwaraka ruins, and Yonaguni.  Let me know if you find a major university or other research entity looking at these or for other ruins like these.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Lake Titicaca has been thoroughly investigated and a 1000+ year old Temple was found. No city.

            Yonaguni is constantly being investigated and the best opinions say it is a natural formation.

            I have never heard of Dwaraka.

            Let me know if you come up with some actual information instead of this nonsense.

      2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh but they are interested.  As I just cited with Mark, they are.  New reports are being published at an astonishing rate.  I find some of their implications and hypothesis concerning Ancient civilizations to be quite plausible, and their new revolutionary data involving human DNA mind boggling.

    26. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

      There are no giant skull, and the underwater cities where above water when they were cities.  There is also a lot of nonsense based on mistaking normal rock formation for cities.  It might be easier to understand if people started with the peer reviewed literature rather than believing the weird stuff playing on the History channel etc these days.

     
    working