Darwinism is ancient but never have answered, evolution: True or False

1. 60

   The Last Quillposted 14 years ago

   My answer is a big FALSE!
   
   My proof is kinda biblical and logical too.
   
   Genesis 2:7  the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
   
   Genesis 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man�s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
   
   This is the basis of my stand and not a bunch of fossils. I believe my great-great. . . grandparents are human and not a couple of chimpanzees. I don't know about theirs.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Springboardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      As I stated in a recent analysis based on Einstein's idea that religion is not necessary in order for one to be ethical, "Religion Is Not Necessary," I don't think we can truly state an absolute fact in either the case for nor against a religious concept, or a non-religious one. I think we have to, as a species, be open-minded and bear in mind that no one can definitively say for sure whether there is, or is not for that matter, a God. I think we have to accept the very real truth that no one absolutely knows the answer.
      
      I usually say I subscribe to a theory. But I never hold it to be the truth. It's what I lean strongest toward based on the data I've collected and based my opinion on. But I'm also ever curious. I'm willing to see the other side's view. I willing to consider the possibility that I may be wrong and the other side may be right.
      
      What would ever make me so naive to believe that I would be the only one so gifted with THE answer, THE truth, that no one else can find with such absolution?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      lol, i just posted something like a response to this:
      
      "We're sorry, the universe is 'out of order', please use another stall. Our specialists are working hard to correct the problem. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and still hope you enjoy your visit."

      replyreport
   3. 60

      kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      you said your proof was kind of biblical and kind of logical too, but I think you must have missed of the second half, cos I can only see the biblical bit.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Hokeyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Here we go again!

      replyreport
   5. 84

      kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nobody with any scientific knowledge whatsoever has ever claimed your ancestors were chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor with chimps, but the hominids (humans and human ancestors) split from the panini (chimps and chimp ancestors) more than 5 million years ago. They're the most closely related to us of any other living species, but we're not descended from them and anyone who says we are doesn't understand the concept of evolution in the slightest.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         well if they split, then there was some kind of connection, yes?
         hmm, all those ??? in that chart...
         dunno, seems far fetched and the time line of 5 million years.
         It is easy to throw a number at the wall and see if it sticks, but it doesn't substantiate a reasonable argument for evolution. In fact, looking at the time line would suggest a 'hypo thesis' (hypothesis) of which no argument can really be defined, so it is dismissed by its own expression. bummer.
         
         Evolution is valid though:
         Miss Piggy and Kermit the frog ARE the same, their kids are pink and green spotted critters, eating anything you put in front of them, snoring 24/7 and constantly attracting flies, jumping from one lily-put pad to the next!
         
         LOL

         replyreport
   6. 0

      cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      actually, it is more absurd to assume that Man was formed from dust and that his rib was taken out of his body and a woman created from it. why not just make her out of dust too?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Besides, since when is "believing in something" a criterion for judging how true that thing actually is. I believe it's raining outside right now -- but I haven't actually checked

         replyreport
      2. 69

         thisisoliposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Because women love to take things from men.

         replyreport
   7. 56

      amandreaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Cain married an evolved monkey, This makes both true.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The Last Quill...humans took a different track when it comes to chimps. They are far from the ancestors of modern human on the evolutionary ladder. somewhere in time there was a divergence. They went one way and evolved the way they did and we went in a different direction. They remained in the trees and we did not. It is believed that with the disappearing forests and the development of the great grasslands humans had to develop ways of coping on land and for our basic shape land travel was best on two rather than four legs.
      
      Lucy comes close or as close as we are likely to get to a possible connection with chimps. She was much smaller than modern human but she could stand on her own two feet like a human. Her bones can be found in Sydney, Australia.

      replyreport
   9. 51

      fallenangel666posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The proof is in the chromosomes, our #2 chromosome aligns with 2p & 2q in chimps, the centromere or central part of the chromosome has traces of a form of repetitive DNA called telomeres, which possess a specific sequence allowing us to recognize it. This telomeric DNA is usually only found at the ends of chromosomes where it forms a cap preventing the unravelling of DNA. The only reason it could be found on both sides of the centromere is because we once had 48 chromosomes like the apes, two pairs of our chromosomes fused to form #2. Further evidence is found in our Y chromosome, chimps and humans share a synapomorphic trait in that fragments of #1 chromosome have been transposited onto the Y chromosome, other apes do not share this trait which proves our close affinity with chimps. We are literally, naked apes.

      replyreport
   10. 84

       psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Your proof of biblical truth is to quote the bible?  hello tautology?

       replyreport
2. 59

   Beelzedadposted 14 years ago

   Hello sir, I think you might want to understand evolution before giving it the big FALSE! I provided a link to a book you might want to read, too.
   
   Evolution requires 2 things:
   
   1. The generation of diversity.
   2. Natural selection - culling of the "less fit".
   
   Process number (1) is essentially a random process, entirely in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Process number (2), which involves the disproportionate death (or failure to reproduce) of the less fit, could perhaps be regarded as a "running down" process, if you want to look at it that way. But processes (1) and (2) together produce all the forms of life we see on Earth.
   
   
   http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi … f-species/

   replyreport
3. 60

   The Last Quillposted 14 years ago

   I am not against evolution in general, but monkeys to human in particular? That is just against what God says and a challenge to what He can do. Other stuff on this earth I might agree to evoved from something. God created human as human is what I'm talking about.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution does not say we came from monkeys.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         AlexK2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The standard theory says Apes and humans have a a common ancestor.
         Monkeys apes and humans have a common ancestor further back.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   2. 59

      Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It wasn't monkeys to humans, it was a species from which both monkeys and humans evolved.
      
      Everything on earth evolved as long as the two requirement I listed in my previous posts were met, including man.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Right on Beelzedad!

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Everything else evolved with time...Then snap crackle pop here we come out of nowhere. Would you admit that seeing the monkeys at least gave God the idea to create us?

      replyreport
4. 0

   Will Bensonposted 14 years ago

   The Last Quill wrote:
   
   "...the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man..."
   
   
   ...the one that held our stomachs in???

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Lol, that must be it...

      replyreport
   2. 60

      The Last Quillposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I did not write that, I quoted that from the bible. I did not write the bible either. You can check other translation of the bible, you might see something in your liking.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Faybe Bayposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly Last Quill, the translation, as there was no word for rib, is side. God took side of Adam. The reason no one wants to use that is because it gives way to mankind being dual,
         
         "Thou wast perfect in the day thou wast created"
         
         "male and female created he them" (this before the rib)
         
         These translations suggest that man (Adam is the name of mankind) was created as a dually sexed individual. There are many animals that are created thus, and reproduce asexually.
         
         The translations of these original concepts leave open a host of reasons for bi-sexual and homo-sexual behavior. That being said, the translations are biased, to attempt to prevent what was considered and aberration at the time of the translations.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "Them", connotes plural, not singular. 
            
            I think you misunderstand the genesis text you are reading. There are two creations in Genesis. The first is in spirit, the second in the flesh.
            
            God made male and female in spirit, but the world was still barren. So He then placed adam upon the world in flesh to work and tend the earth.
            
            Then he made eve, because it was not good for man to be alone.
            
            God did not create sexual deulism in man. That is an abhoration of man, not God. But good try.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Faybe Bayposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, going from Hebrew Translation. Since they are attributed with the writing of the book, I have to go there.
               
               PS Man did the translation and the King James Version wasn't translated by Hebrews.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  The translation has nothing to do with the concept of sexual duelism. Nice bright red herring there though.
                  
                  And I would advise you to go read the actual hebrew translation. Both creations are in the hebrew original also.  but you may believe as you want. Have a good nite.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Faybe Bayposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Good night. Maybe read the Kabbalah and the Zohar, in your spare time. There is more to the Bible than meets the eye, hence the debate.
                     
                     Aberration and abhoration are two different things, the latter of which I am not even sure is a real word. BTW.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes I know they are different words... lol.
                        
                        I am glad you understand that, and we are on the same page.
                        
                        I used the word I wanted, for the inference I wanted to interject.
                        
                        OK?

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Faybe Bayposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Ok cuz you scared me. I am of the belief that the Bible is not a history so much as a life teacher, filled with lessons for those willing to learn, and confusion for those who try to take it at face value.
                           
                           I believe in creation, but I think the actual Diaries of the Patriarchs were left out because they didn't "go with the story" the "leaders" wanted us to hear.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              We could debate a thousand point of the bible tonight and have plenty of debate left over.
                              
                              And the bible is a great history book. Archeology and anthropology are finding more and more hard facts to support the historocity of the biblical texts everyday.
                              
                              But yes I agree man minipulates the texts to suit his needs. And also there are many things in the hassidic lore to gather info from also. if you look it is there...

                              replyreport
                              1. 65

                                 Faybe Bayposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 Agreed. Historocity? I love new words. I would go with Historacity  though, historical/veracity. Okay. I'll let you go. Cooking dinner and trying to make money doing surveys... OUCH.
                                 
                                 See you round the forums.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 61

                                 AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 You don't say...

                                 replyreport
   3. 60

      tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
5. 60

   TMMasonposted 14 years ago

   Beelzedad. Evolution does not account for all forms of life on earth. Especially mankind. But good try. Even Alfred Russell Wallace pointed that out, while he helped to pen the, "theory of evolution".
   
   His works on the inabillity of evolution to account for mankinds attributes, have not to this day been defeated by any logical reasoning or evidence to show his points flawed.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Conscious evolution does.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Hey marine how u been. Good I hope.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I have been good. How have you been, good to see you.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               pretty good. A lil tired from traveling, but otherwise fine.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Where have you been traveling to?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Went to see family all over the place, but ended my travels in Maine.

                     replyreport
   2. 59

      Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, evolution does account for all forms of life on earth.

      replyreport
6. 0

   Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago

   here, this is evolution for ya:
   
   without these creatures, the entire global food-growth supply will disappear. A bee:
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_ … aring_bees

   replyreport
7. 60

   TMMasonposted 14 years ago

   I find it amusing to think we know that because one thing in nature dies out, all others would die in it's wake.
   
   I beleive nature is more resiliant than that. You over-simplify, and I think, exagerate the reality of it. Nature and Life, have a way of enduring and continuing on. I would not underestimate them.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nature is reslient and would certainly survive the extinction of bees, but it is also prone to the odd mass extinction...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree.

         replyreport
8. 60

   Hokeyposted 14 years ago

   Darwin is right. Religionists are wrong. End of story.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      well that settles it all. lol

      replyreport
   2. 81

      earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's the spirit hokey! Cut to the chase!

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      seriously, that might very well be the best ever. The perfect duality expression. Good one. It proves the case of the Ism, on both sides. Neither side as a flock-in-clue (Scottish accent implied)

      replyreport
9. 51

   Pandanusposted 14 years ago

   As a Christian I adhere to the Creationist stand. However, most people don't remember that when Darwin collected his evidence he was working as a Scientist from observed facts -the animals and plant life in front of him- and was proposing a theory. Others ran with this theory and in my opinion made too much of it.
   
   His work explains much about the spread of life on earth and identifies demarcation lines of different types of life. His work was still valuable and valid and a genuine contribution to mankind's knowledge.
   
   Towards the end of his life, he was astounded and appalled at what had been made of his work. It went far too far to what he had intended. He was in fact a divinity student who had completed his studies and qualified as a minister when the opportunity for the Beagle trip came up. He may have had his own doubts of faith, but his wife and family remained devout Christians.
   
   The current and ongoing debate - Creation vs Evolution - is to me a frustrating diversion from what is important. Using Science to explain and increase our understanding and knowledge of God's Creation. Evolutionary theory will never explain how we came into being because it will only attack Creation and not consider it as a viable explanation and look for proof.
   
   I keep my faith in God because I have tested him and he has proved true. I keep my faith in Science because the true Scientist is always testing and adopting theories and discarding that which proves false. Faith gives us a yardstick and guidance to how to live our lives. Science empowers and enriches us to live it well.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Faybe Bayposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You might like this Movie.
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU

      replyreport
   2. 60

      TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Darwin made as much out of his claim as those others did. Have you ever read Wallaces work. He co-authored the theory of Evolution with Darwin. He agreed evolution may do what it is purported to do in nature and within the animal kingdom. But he, Wallace, did not believe it applied to man. You should check his work out.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         okay, Darwin was 1830. So from then to 1,000,000 years before no one considered Evolution -as it is undocumented- according to Evolution.
         
         anyone see a problem with that?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Consciousness evolved over time.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               here we go a-gain.
               
               time is a consciousness parallel, subject only to that stasis
               I'll have a cigarette and come back to argue the rest of that.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually pigion breeders and other breeders of animals new for thousands of years they could breed traits in or out of a line of stock. I see no great intelligence behind the documenting of facts already known. but that is science for you... always thinking they know something they usually do not.

                  replyreport
10. 60

    marinealways24posted 14 years ago

    Twenty, I hope the cigg was good. Time is absolute, it takes time to learn new things. How much did you know when you were first born? Little to nothing. It takes time to even learn how to walk, much less figure out how we came to exist.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       how can we learn new things when the things that were already there (the old things) haven't even come to our attention/awareness in that consciousness. It actually takes no time and no time at all to become aware of any thought we have.
       
       the cig was g-reat! { in a faux Scot accent }

       replyreport
11. 60

    TMMasonposted 14 years ago

    They better start with explaining how the cosmos came to exist first.... since we exist within it. And all Cosmologists know the age of the universe is far less that it would have taken for the formation of galaxies and solar systems.
    
    So, if the time needed to create the place we live within is not to be found... then how do you know anything about the rest.
    
    I think science should admit what they do not know.... then work from there.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I think it is possible that consciousness creates everything, even the universe. I don't know what created the first consciousness, but does this mean i'm not conscious for not knowing everything?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Your right.... on the quantum scale nothing exists till we create it with our conscious.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Thanks TM. Hope you are having a good day.

             replyreport
    2. 59

       Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Science does admit what it does not know and does work from there. They just don't offer explanations of gods, angels and devils when they haven't got an answer yet.
       
       Believers do.

       replyreport
12. 67

    Rod Marsdenposted 14 years ago

    just how is Darwinism ancient? Darwinism in any of its forms including Social Darwinism, a misinterpretation of Darwin's work, can only possibly date back to the 19th century. Not really ancient at all!

    replyreport
13. 0

    Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago

    ph, the bible. Darwin-ism is not ancient.
    A pointless argument, unless your great grandparents count as ancient.

    replyreport
14. 72

    Diane Insideposted 13 years ago

    I believe in evolution to a point, I don't believe we came from apes. But I do believe that species to evolve to some degree. But lets also not forget Darwin turned to God on his death bed.

    replyreport
    1. 88

       Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       He still died though.

       replyreport
    2. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Dear me.
       
       You believe we did not come from apes? So you reject evolution completely. Why then say you accept it up to a point. Where is that point exactly and how on earth do you justify this in your head?
       
       How does that work? Everything evolved - except for humans which were created? Despite the fairy tale book you get your "science" from saying the guy upstairs created everything as is? It was lying about the birds? They evolved but we did not?
       
       Or do you have some other creature that we did evolve from?
       
       But not an ape?
       
       Confused and keen to learn from an expert on biology such as yourself.

       replyreport
    3. 60

       McHamletposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I believe this is incorrect.; a story made up by a woman called Lady Hope. See Wikipedia amongst other sources: "The "Lady Hope Story", first published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were rejected by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians." In any case, there are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution. In Europe it's not an issue for the vast majority of people whether you are religious or not. Of course that doesn't necessarily make it true; what makes it true depends on an examination of the evidence. I think people should do more of that but if they don't want to or are not convinced, that's entirely up to them. It's not something that you can force people to believe particularly if they are socio-culturally disinclined to do so.

       replyreport