It is totally implausible in this postmodern, 21st century society that some people still have some contention regarding evolution. They contend that evolution is incongruent to religion and the bible. They further maintain that there is no such thing as evolution and that evolution is false. They blindly exhort these inconclusions despite the overwhelming evidence that there was evolution. It is obvious that life forms on this planet advanced from the most simplest to the most complex and some species are still evolving and changing.
Why is there is such much contention and denial of evolution? This is totally illogical thinking. Humans are descendants from apes. Humans are primates whether some people wish to acknowledge this or not. In fact, all life on Earth are descendant from a common ancestor that was alive 3.8 billion years ago. Species, both mineral, plant, animal, and human have undergone various mutations, some adapting and even thriving in their environment while some have become extinct. According to a study done by the Proceedings of the National Royal Academy of Sciences indicated that there is a 95% similarily in the DNA between humans and chimpanzees. Evolution has been consistently proven; what makes some people deny that there was evolution although it is based upon scientific data and evidence?
We can easily see here on these forums, at least, that those who reject or deny evolution simply have no clue what evolution is about, they never took the time to understand it and are probably getting their information from Christian apologetic websites that also have no clue how evolution works. It is a classic case of the blind leading the blind.
Really sad, some people would rather rely upon baseless superstition than authenticated scientific fact. Quite implausible to say the least. It is an exercise in utter futility to fight scientific evidence. There are those who believe in Adam and Eve when it is been conclusively proven that the first human was named Lucy! How unreal can people be!
I'm really sorry, GM, but you made a major faux pas when you put humans into the animal kingdom. It is a very poor start as we all know humans are not animals. Plants, maybe (I'm not sure) but definitely not animals.
Not everyone believes what you believe. Evolution is just a theory. I do not think I am being unreasonable for believing otherwise.
When you say evolution is just a theory, can you tell me what you think the word theory means?
A theory is something that cannot be proven. People might have an idea, but no one really knows how old the world is, because no one was there when it was created.
Wrong. A theory is a reasonable idea, which is set up in a way in which further events or things can be predicted based on the idea.
People don't have to "be there" to make a reasonable guess, based on the best scientific evidence.
Given that not a single action/thing in the future can be proven to happen (the sun may not rise) and that not a single thing from the past can either, (photographs may be changed), a scientific theory is the best that we can come up with. It is proof in the world of the scientific method.
Commonly misunderstood, a theory in science has been proven beyond the ability of anyone to disprove it. It matches/explains the physical world better than anything else does and it has a great deal of physical evidence to support it.
Lybrah - I'm going to point you to something from a creationist website called Answers in Genesis. They have a whole page dedicated to the "arguments that proponents of creationism should NOT use" and "it's just a theory" is on it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … e-dont-use
Keep in mind that I'm not a creationist, but this is elementary level stuff that even most fundamentalists know to avoid. I recommend reading up on the site just for your OWN benefit, although the claims that answers in genesis makes are ALSO false and can be refuted. That being said, even THEY recognize that a scientific theory is not a guess, and are honest enough to admit it and avoid the argument that you just made.
FURTHERMORE, the scientific theory is not an educated guess, or a guess of any kind.
Scientific Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
If the evolution theory is correct, then what is the next genus when the humans have evolved into .... what? Surely an evolution is something that continues, correct?
and ... does the evolution theory mean that Noah was a chimpanzee?
You do know that no evolutionist says we descended from chimps, right? We share a common ancestor with apes. In fact, some would argue that we are apes.
I don't believe Noah was anything, as I think he was mythological, as is the flood story. If it makes you feel beget, I don't think that gilgamesh existed either.
Oh! My apologies -- I did not mean to offend your ancestors.
My ancestors are dead and therefore cannot be offended. Mythological figures can't be offended either.
If it makes you feel better, I also believe Gilgamesh is a mythological figure.
How is Noah any different than Gilgamesh? They are the same mythology.
Not true -- I know for a fact that Noah is Bill Cosby. Did you ever see his act? It was awesomely funny.
Ok. Since you can't seem to even take your own stance seriously, I won't try to either.
I don't think many evolutionists would say that humans are the end of evolution.
Although I personally think there's a good chance we are.
We are still evolving right now. That's why there are different skin colors.
True -- and different levels of intelligence. Yet, what will the next step in evolution be?
I don't know. Ask an evolutionary biologist.
I like the Flintstone theory, I think it's the only film showing dinosaurs co existed with man
That is Mendel's Law, the lighter-lights and the darker-darks as the seeds are reproduced over multiple generations. In high school biology they used to teach it with the white and red flowers. It happens with what we call the human races. With people I used to see the National Geographic magazines and they would draw the different local people and tribes people in various lands and you could see the characteristics set apart people from only a few hundred miles apart or separated by a sea or high mountain range. It is quite interesting, isn't it?
I find this article very interesting:
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/feb/ … ust-hunch/
Also, in the comments section, a Ronald Jones wrote something I find really interesting. He said: "what really separates "experts" is their ability to win arguments, whether or not their "facts" are factual or not." hmmmm ... something to ponder on.
"Experts" are a group of people who are educated in a certain field, according to the education or learning system of the time. They are whoever that particular group deems as experts.
I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this. It only becomes wrong when new facts or interpretations of the facts are ignored and/or ridiculed simply for superficial reasons, like stubbornness, people wanting to keep their careers intact, or just plain refusal to accept new ideas.
In fact, I think this is the case more often than not.
Lucy is a proven mistake, and Javaman a proven fake. ALL "missing links" have NOT panned out. Do your homework please.
NO "missing links" have ever been found Not in humans, not in plants (ask any evolution scientist where flowers came from).
Evolution is obvious. What is not obvious is where the changes come from, because it happens in giant leaps, which are unexplained.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Not even evolutionists think that.
Yet all fossils were "missing links" (during a transition from one form to another) before they were found. Whereupon they became "discovered links".
Not really. There are plenty of live species, and fossilized species. Fully formed, in their specific niches. But no links between them.
Not one fossil of a plant has ever been found that had features of something "in between" non sexually and sexually producing plants. Sexual reproduction just suddenly appeared, and biologists can't explain that.
That is just one example.
Kind of hard for a fossil to show the soft tissue of sexual reproduction, don't you think? I would have to agree that such things will not be found.
But you will always be able to point to a specific "link" that is missing - that's part of figuring it all out. We will NEVER have a complete history of all species, and to complain that that proves the theory is incorrect is nonsense.
Much like saying that we have horses and we have Arthropleura, a giant centipede from the Carboniferous age. The two are likely related, with dinosaurs being the "missing link" you want. Just not the specific species you want to see - the million different species have not all been found and never will be.
Ok. Explain this then.
Which evolved first? The female or the male flowering plant? Or did they both do it simultaneously? And when did the pollinator "mutate" to provide the means of procreation between the two? At the same time, after? Before? If pollinating plants don't exist, then bees can't exist. If bees (or another pollinator) don't exist, flowering plants don't exist.
But, amazingly, they all(male, female, and pollinator) mutated at exactly the right time(or even better, a long, slow series of mutations, each surviving to mutate further), in the right place, without the mutated varieties dying out before the entire system had a chance to get going.
They probably started as "hermaphrodites", with sexual reproduction providing more and better possible mutations. If pollinating plants don't exist, then bees cannot exist. Not flying insects; bees as we know them today. Which has very little to do with those first flying pollinating insects. And vice versa.
But of course a biologist could guess far better than I. The point is that the questions being asked do NOT indicate or prove it can't happen.
What's so surprising that plants and animals evolve "sympathetically". To either one, the other is the environment, and something to adapt to. You certainly can't say one mutated at "exactly the right time", as any time in the species life span is the "right time". If it wasn't this millenium, then life goes on as it is until the next millenium, when the first of a thousand mutations happens.
Only biologists, and geneticists can't say. They are as baffled as the rest of us, including Darwin.
The fact is, the evidence doesn't support long, drawn out evolution based on mutations. Could be possible, sure. But it isn't proven.
After over a hundred years of search for evidence, there is no proof that explains major changes, such as sexual reproduction. There are guesses.
It is just as likely that changes were sudden.
Can't say what? Which started first? Of course not - there will never be a guarantee that we've found the first example of a new species. It could have existed for a million years prior to the single fossil we find.
The fact is, the evidence doesn't support quick, thousand year evolution based on mutations. Could be possible, sure. But it isn't proven.
Perhaps mostly because it is unlikely the changes were sudden because it takes multiple mutations to produce such things. While it is possible that something happened in the environment to produce a faster rate of mutation (contaminated atmosphere, solar flares, supernova with radiation, etc.) it is still unlikely that dozens or hundreds would all happen at the same time and all be beneficial, all leading to a single major change in a species.
Biologists and evolutionists all agree there were many, SUDDEN changes throughout evolutionary history.
Why and how is the real question.
You link gives nothing in the way of numbers, but are we discussing the same thing?
I mean, do you see the "sudden" changes (say from eohippus to modern horse) to happen in a handful of generations or a million or more? Keeping in mind that that million generations could be 2 years or twenty million years?
I don't know how evolution works.
But no one really does. They can only guess at this point, and make assumptions.
What I THINK is going on, but have no proof of, is that evolution was designed from the beginning, beforehand. By God or some other entity of an intelligent nature, with an specific purpose in mind.
I don't think it is random. Mutations exist, but are only part of the process to a designed end. When certain circumstances are in place, a major, predesigned change can occur. I think maybe small changes occur, until a critical mass(or certain conditions are met) and then a larger, more important change, like from non sexual to sexual reproduction can happen.
Whether god is playing a hand in each mutation is irrelevant. They happen from natural causes, not magic - if god points the gamma rays or provides the chemicals or "juggles" the probabilities of DNA mis-match during the copying process them so be it.
Mutations are random; we have zero indication of anything else whereas it's really hard to find any possible reason for the vast majority of mutations. A child without a forebrain, for instance. Whether those mutations are beneficial and remain in the species is most definitely NOT random; it is called survival of the fittest.
Small changes occur, yes, and they build up perhaps unnoticed, perhaps obvious. A final change or two and presto you have sexual reproduction. Or whatever. Of course that means that 99.99% of the requirements were already there long before such reproduction actually started. In this matter we don't seem too far apart - the definition of "sudden" is not tomorrow or next year.
Add in that we will never know when a species starts and there is a problem. When we find a fossil of a new species, coming from an older one, they may have co-existed for a million years or more; we just don't have the fossils of those individuals and will probably never have them.
I didn't suggest that God uses magic to create anything.
God designed all the natural laws that govern everything from the weather to evolution, and anything else in between.
That is an assertion that you would need to demonstrate with evidence before it can be accepted as true, at least for me.
That's true. I don't have any evidence that what I think is true.
But evolution through random mutation and survival of the fittest is also not a proven fact, and I won't believe it until it is proven to be true either.
That would seem to mean that:
1) you don't believe mutations can happen from random causes. Like eating a bit of noxious chemical or walking near too much pitchblende (uranium ore, radioactive).
2) you do not believe that statistically the most fit individuals, most equipped for survival in a specific environmental niche, will survive (reproduce) over less fit individuals.
About all that could be said there is that the beliefs are interesting.
1) There can probably be mutations that are results of accidents, that can then be fixed by dna itself, or be allowed to die out. That doesn't preclude that there was a design in the first place.
Many mutations result repeatedly from identical conditions. I mean the same mutations will occur over and over again as the result of specific environments. That leads me to believe that it's probable that for any given circumstance, there is a specific change that is designed to happen. Anything that doesn't conform to the plan is a true "mutation" and will eventually die out.
2) No, I don't believe that
I believe everything is preprogrammed FOR it's environment, and they die out when they no longer serve their purpose, which is creating new genes for more highly evolved species. Most likely through horizontal, large scale gene transfer.
About the only response I can give is that the world of faith and belief can be a fascinating one. The interest won't last long, but what people can come up with, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, can be fascinating.
You mean like the mutation that happened to make northern Europeans lactose tolerant while others remain lactose intolerant? That was a true mutation? Why would God need some people lactose tolerant and other not? I does however make perfect sense when we exclude God from the situation and understand that it's simple a separated group adapting to it's environment.
Amazing how genes know the exact changes to make to be able to adapt to their environment.
Not amazing at all, as long as you understand the genes mutate at random but whether those mutations are viable long term and become a part of the species is most definitely NOT random. Mutations happen all the time - some good and useful, some bad to the point of stillborn. And some are not particularly helpful but neither are the harmful - until the right environmental changes happens as well as all of sudden the ability to open the iris just a little more than normal is VERY useful when the daily dust storms begin to appear.
I don't agree. I think mutations occur to exactly fit the environment.
And should you wish to promote that concept all you need to do is produce the intelligence that is behind each mutation.
I'd have to guess that you have a very tough row to hoe ahead of you...
I agree. But I'm not trying to promote anything, just saying what I think.
I have my ideas, and I know they are only ideas.
I am able to change my mind when the facts warrant it. I don't have to be "right".
My main goal is to understand how and why the universe works. I am not satisfied with several aspects of what is currently accepted in science, including evolution as it is described.
Confusion. You don't have to be "right" but you want to understand the world around us? The two statements would seem incompatible. How can you understand the world if your information is wrong? I very much want to be right in what I understand, and just as you say will change that understanding if better evidence comes to light (which is common).
But a scenario for you: Visualize a gamma ray, headed for a zygote in...that creature. We know gamma rays cause mutations, but now you have to consider that this gamma ray must examine the environment, the creature and many others of the same species. It must make a determination what would be a "good" mutation. It must decipher the DNA code and determine which chemical must be changed to which other chemical in order to effect that mutation. It must steer itself into the DNA string that will match with one of a sperm and not be discarded. This all seems a bit much for a gamma ray, a photon from an interstellar reaction light years away, to accomplish.
But it's not over yet. All the "bad" mutations, particularly the ones resulting in a stillbirth, must be explained. They are obviously not in tune with the environment, do not fit the environment at all, but still happen. People are born without limbs, or even without a forebrain. Miscarriages where the cause was a grossly deformed fetus. All mutations of some kind (DNA matches neither father nor mother), none of which "fit" the environment.
Unless, of course, the old "goddunnit" is used for both good and bad mutations. God can steer that photon, can make it hit the right egg, can make the right chemical change take place.
"Confusion. You don't have to be "right" but you want to understand the world around us? The two statements would seem incompatible. How can you understand the world if your information is wrong? I very much want to be right in what I understand, and just as you say will change that understanding if better evidence comes to light (which is common)."
I will answer this first, and then get to the other part.
What I mean by "I don't have to be right" means that I don't have to hold on to a believe blindly. I am able to change my mind if some new information is brought to my attention. That's why I had the word "right" in quotes.
I have a certain worldview, but if I get information that proves to me sufficiently that I am wrong about something, then I am forced to look at my worldview in a new light, and try to rearrange my worldview accordingly.
I admit I'm not a genius, and probably have insufficient reasoning skills for my goal. But I am stubborn, and I keep trying to improve in areas that I am deficient.
But, you're refusing to get the information about evolution, which would indeed change your worldview, if you were being honest about it. Of course, you won't learn anything about evolution because you know it will change your worldview, one from being dishonest to honest, ignorance to knowledge, belief to understanding.
I think we ALL have insufficient reasoning skills to learn as much as we would wish to learn. You're not alone there!
But I do understand better. Thank you.
I don't think that individual gamma rays have intelligence. I think that evolution is preplanned. To carry out according to rules that were designed beforehand. To culminate in a desired end. As each new set of conditions is met, new mutations can take place, according to the design.
Why is that? Because it doesn't say God does it so it can't be right? Here is an example of how it works. Dark skinned people move north from Africa. As happens babies are sometimes born darker than their parents and sometimes lighter. There mare many genes at play in skin color. As it turns out dark skin is unable to produce the necessary vitamin D in the body and so many get sick and weak. Those born with lighter skin are able make more vitamin D and become strong while those with darker skin become weaker. The stronger ones reproduce and gradually the tribe becomes lighter in skin. No plan involved at all. Simply an adaptation to an environment.
Why is that? Because it doesn't say God does it so it can't be right?
No. It's because the evidence doesn't fit the current, accepted theory of evolution.
I am not going to repeat myself over and over again. I've explained that many times.
Basically I think that there is a plan behind evolution. I think God is the planner.
Right after telling us all you know nothing about evolution.
I didn't say I know nothing about evolution. I said that no one, including scientists, understand evolution.
There is a huge difference.
I know what the facts are. I interpret them in a different way.
Yes, you did, here are your words:
"I don't know how evolution works."
That is not true and only shows the depths of dishonesty you're stooping. If you don't know how evolution works, it's an obvious lie to say scientists don't understand it.
Of course I don't know how evolution works. That does not mean I don't know what the FACTS are.
An evolution scientist doesn't know how evolution works. They have ideas and theories, but that doesn't mean their interpretation is correct.
No, you don't know the facts, your posts reveal that obvious flaw.
Yes, they do, the fact that you don't doesn't mean others don't.
Theories are a collection of facts to explain a phenomenon. You don't even know what a theory is.
Yes I do know the facts.
Scientists have opinions, which may or may not be correct.
Explanations can be wrong.
No, you don't. No need to be dishonest about what is so very obvious.
Do you think that all scientific theories are correct?
Again, that question would show well beyond a shadow of doubt you don't even know what a theory is.
I'll just assume then that you DO think that all scientific theories are correct.
Since you won't answer with a simple yes or no.
The answer won't help you at all because you don't even know what a theory is.
I've come to realize there is a certain class of people who cannot debate, who's only intention is to insult.
Insult away, I will refrain from discussing anything else with you.
Yes, they insult our intelligence by denying or rejecting facts in favor of their supernatural explanations and are not interested at all in learning anything, let alone possessing the capacity to debate anything.
I didn't say what I think is evidence.
What I think is my own interpretation of the evidence.
DR LAMB WROTE:
Specifically what evidence?
DR LAMB WROTE:
What you think is not evidence.
What is the evidence you have that makes you think that God is the planner? You specifically said the evidence doesn't fit the current, accepted theory of evolution. Please provide said evidence.
But, you know nothing about evolution, so how you can you say that?
No, that is not your goal, your goal is to deny and reject facts about how our universe works in favor of your religious beliefs, that is exactly what your posts reveal.
So, you just finished saying you don't understand evolution and now you're saying it's not a proven fact.
Could you be any more dishonest?
Why would you not believe something that we have mounds of evidence for and believe something that we have no evidence for?
Sorry survival of the fittest is a proven fact. Ever watch lions pick the weakest zebra fro a group and then eat it?
No argument although you have to know you cannot make the claim in all honesty either. Because it cannot be argued either way.
In other words, you don't understand how anything works, so God must have done it.
Then, it would very dishonest of you to make any comments about evolution, wouldn't it? Yet, here you are.
Uh yeah, there are a tremendous amount of people who do understand evolution and agree with it, because it is a fact of nature.
It's rather simple really. If an animal is perfectly adapted to it's environment, little or no change will occur. Take that same animal and drop it into a different environment and the animal will adapt. Light skin in humans in one such adaptation to less daylight as is shorter limbs in those humans who have adapted to the far north. A donkey horse and zebra have all adapted to different environments so that they look and behave differently.
Humans are of course still evolving except we no longer have to adapt to a strange environment, but there is the issue of procreation. Because smarter and better looking people procreate more we have become and continue to become smarter and better looking as a whole. For humans to evolve faster there would need to be an environmental change that we would need to adapt to.
"smarter people procreate more"
I would definitely ask for proof of that statement, as the stereotype is welfare mama sitting at home popping out babies from daddies scurrying around on gang laden streets. Neither showing much intelligence.
But beyond that, smart people procreate more with birth controls in use. They therefore do not reproduce as much and therefore are dropping the average intelligence level of the country. Yes?
Think about evolution as a language. Spanish and French evolved from earlier Latin. You did not have someone wake up one morning speaking Spanish when they went to bed speaking Latin. Who would understand them? Who would they talk to? Latin gradually changed and adapted over time into Spanish, French and other languages. It wasn't sudden.
Link please? Because they in the ancestral hominids tree as far as I know.
And who mentioned apes? Humans are primates as are apes and we have common ancestors.
" Humans are descendants from apes." gmwilliams.
Links for what?
It is commonly known that there are NO accepted transitionary specimens found that link one species to another, animal or plant.
Of course we are descended from primates. I'm saying that we don't know how that happens. Evolutions don't know.
Here's a question for you: what came first, the flower or the bee?
Uh - the genetic code slowly changes. And what was species A becomes species B. Or it changes quickly as in a hybrid like a mule. And of course, given that the definition is species is rather vague.
Flower or bee - who knows for sure? Guarantee that whichever it was, though, it did not depend on the other in the very early stages of it's career as a species.
No it doesn't slowly change.. Change comes in giant, unexplained leaps.
Sorry, I don't think there are many "giant unexplained leaps" that occur over a generation or even two. That would be extremely rare.
Your "giant unexplained leaps" are taking millenia, and many generations, to come about.
wilderness, good theory, but not proven. I believed it for a long time, but now I'm starting to wonder if limited conditions that allowed survival, but created great pain or danger would force a species to evolve in a matter of a handful of generations, rather than many millennia.
Gradual sounds logical and more doable, but crisis-generated change may also be a factor. It may even be the major factor in species change.
Bottom line: We just don't know, because we haven't been around long enough to have witnessed such a transition.
And I seem to remember some scientists discussing strange jumps in evolution.
This is interesting because the Bible does not conflict with evolution theory. Evolution does occur within species but it cannot occur between genus'. I mean that a canine can be bred into different breeds of dog; but, canine cannot be bred to feline. They once bred a lion and tiger both feline genus and got a sickly "liger" as I remember it was called. Horses cannot breed with cattle but a horse and donkey can produce a mule. One problem is that the mules are sterile most of the time, so that, a farmer must breed another horse and donkey to get more mules. This is what is written in Genesis chapter one when it is written every thing after its own kind, its own seed lineage. Otherwise, what a mess this world would be in by this time, wouldn't it?
except no one can quite agree on what "kind" means. Is it a family? A genus? a sub-species?
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/e … asics4.htm
When working with genus', scientists have tried cross pollination and gotten some hybrid grains. Genus' building codes are hard to break. Most of the work trying to raise stronger cattle with less susceptibility to disease and drought has relied on other cattle strains. Sheep don't breed in, neither do horses as far as I have ever heard. Those type animals are not even interested in each other sexually.
There is no missing link because Adam and Eve were made separately after the Creator began rebuilding the earth after the war in heaven destroyed the first heaven and earth period. We are in the second heaven and earth period. God did not create light in Genesis 1 he only said let there be light. I think people came out pretty good for most of them. If some people want to walk on their knuckles, they can go right ahead. I don't go to that religion. Seems like a cramped way to go to work. How would you drive your car?
But there may be examples of interbreeding that cause God to get angry.
In my new book I discuss evidence that God may have created Noah's Flood and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of bestiality and the hybrid offspring that would eventually have destroyed humanity, if left alone.
God has a purpose for us. He created us in His image and likeness, but He is not Homo sapiens. Humans were created (likely not evolved) as a rescue vessel after the fall from grace in the Garden (a thoroughly spiritual, non-physical place, despite the decoration of physical description). The death in the Garden was a spiritual death -- not physical!
And God wants His children back -- not the bodies they wear.
I am not going to repeat myself over and over again. I've explained that many times.
Basically I think that there is a plan behind evolution. I think God is the planner.============
me ... I agree. .. The creator said let it be, ... BANG ... here it is. .. life begins. Things evolve. conditions become suitable for higher forms of life. ....
DISCLAMER ... the following is only one of many possible scenarios .... Call it ranting if you will.
When conditions finally became suitable on earth for higher forms of life; The earth is seeded with different forms of life. There are numerous humanoid life forms on earth. One of these humanoid life forms is "CHOSEN" to be best most suitable to prosper and was "Chisen" to inherit the earth. Certain food supplies were poisoned and the "Chosen" species was directed to not consume those food supplies (such as pork and shellfish etc) This wipes out the majority of those other species of humanoids.
However there were many survivors most of which gathered together in cities. The creator instructs this one particular species of humanoids (which are that chosen people) to destroy those cities killing all living things within the borders of that town, eating nothing nor taking anything with them from those towns, that they not be contaminated.
The genocide of these other humanoids was complete.
Today, there is only one species of humanoids upon the face of the earth. The war has been won many centuries ago.
Unfortunately ... it would seem ... Humanity as a whole ... is addicted to war. As if the political powers that be, are convinced that war is the most effective form of population control.
Unfortunately; those instincts have filtered down through out every aspect of societies behavior to the smallest degree.
If they are different than "US" we gotta do something about it.
If we could have more wars there would be fewer people starving to death.
It is easy to see what is wrong with the world.
Nobody is going to fix the big problems while fighting over the small stuff.
So, what planet are you talking about, certainly not this one?
didn't you see he disclaimer at the top?
As it said, Just one of many possible Theory's which is just as easy for most to believe as LIVE and everything in it came from absolutely nothing, and all mammals evolved from a tadpole type of creature.
IMO, One version doesn't sound any more magical than another.
Invoking supernatural explanations because a person doesn't understand theories is not honest at all, and can appear "magical" to the ignorant. To label your religious fantasy as a theory is even more dishonest.
One has to wonder just how low believers will stoop to deny and reject facts in favor of their religious fantasies.
Fear of a elusive hell or a false promise to heaven is greater than the total love for the real world. Their understanding and love for the natural environment and the other millions of other species of plants and animals lacks energy, is my thought.
Thank you for having such a high opinion of me. I''ve never made any negative comments like this directed at you.
I see in another thread you attribute those attributes toward the entire human race, so I see you just got a little bit carried away focusing it toward just believers. my mistake in taking it personally just because It seemed to be pointed at me.
Also from another thread, ... spiritualist are also believers seeing as how they believe in something. They are just not involved in a religion of a specific god like entity as described in any of the various bibles. I personally believe we can believe there is a God and also not believe the most popular interpretations of any given book. Don't think a God would want us to worship a book even if it is about that God. (??)
Whether you are willing to admit it or not, ... you ARE believing in magic when you "BELIEVE" this vast universe and everything in just happened one day, all by itself. It came into existence as a tinny little thing ... and for some reason that you can not explain, exploded into A L L of this,
It didn't come from anyplace else? Because someplace doesn't exist ?.Now that is Magic.
Why do you believe that magic such as that is a one time thing; and it doesn't exist any longer".
Now ... can you answer this question without discussing other things which you don't believe in. . Day one of this universe event certainly was a magic act. And this magic act dodn't even have a performer. And this rabbit didn't even have a hat to be hidden in.
That's a very good point, to the ill-informed and uneducated, science probably does appear to look like magic. That's probably why tv shows like 'Duck Dynasty' are still on the air.
Science has made a tremendous discovery that I'd like to share with you. Did you actually know that the Earth is not flat? Amazing!
since you didn't understand the question i will rephrase it so that you might understand, What caused the very first event which set evolution into motion. If you don't have an answer, it must fall under your definition of magic.??
If you don't understand the question (?) I'm sorry I can't make it any more simple.
That answer is based on science.
More often Magic is use of paranormal methods to manipulate natural forces or the art of appearing to perform supernatural feats. Magic in fiction, attributed to extraordinary beings or objects. would that sound like God?
Science can not prove everything, yet it dose give us a more grounded answers towards the 99% unknown World and Universe.
The purpose of science is not to prove everything, it's purpose is to help explain how everything works.
Humans addicted to war? Perhaps. More than that, though, humans are addicted to Ego -- the source of war, rape, murder, lust, theft, selfishness and every other evil.
Let's be "reasonable?" This is not the type of thing you want to be saying when your life depends on a solution and you think it's impossible, while someone else is in the process of creating that solution. Being reasonable means being incompetent.
So, being reasonable is not all it's cracked up to be.
Science studies the products of God's creation. Spirituality studies the sources of creation. Both complement each other.
Reason is a good tool, but so is inspiration.
Evolution is fact, but many believers have a hard time, because they're trapped in dogma. Anyone who treats the Bible literally is missing the larger message. It was meant to be read spiritually, not literally.
Reading the Bible spiritually, you can find a timeline compatible with those of mainstream science. What's amazing is that the new date for Noah's Flood reveals, through science, the target of the Flood -- a species which went extinct at the same time -- a species which matches the description of the "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6.
Evolution is part of God's creation. What a beautiful thing.
But according to this new timeline, humans have been around for 10.5 million years. Perhaps there was a parent species in the middle of the Miocene Epoch, but I kind of doubt it. Homo sapiens may well be the exception. Not evolved, but created or engineered.
God created us in His image and likeness and He is not Homo sapiens. These human bodies are only the rescue vessels to help us wake up.
Reading the Bible spiritually, I also found the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" matrix embedded in two chapters of Genesis. Sweet! Fits like a glove and explains so many mysteries in Genesis.
You can find out more information on this in my new book, "The Bible's Hidden Wisdom, God's Reason for Noah's Flood." I'd love to get anyone's feedback.
It is always interesting to watch the evolution of religious concepts and ideas. For millenia, man made his gods in the form of mountains, animals, plants and those funny lights in the sky.
As he learned more and discovered that a tree really isn't a god, the gods became more remote, though they still reacted with man (and woman, making babies with them). Once more, though, those immaterial but active gods gave way to knowledge and Odin, Thor and the rest disappeared into antiquity and myth while man made a new attempt at a god - the Christian/Muslim creation of one totally removed from man. One that does not react with anything outside our own feelings, that can never be found or seen.
But even that one again began to deteriorate with increasing knowledge as so much of the writings provided by the god were shown to be false. And we have, perhaps the last big effort, to maintain the gods of man with the sophistry that His writings don't mean what they say but whatever we wish them to say. Whatever fits with what we know, what fits with what we want our god to be and do. Whatever we decide that "spiritual" readings mean, in other words.
Science studies the products of God's creation. Spirituality studies the sources of creation and Evolution is part of God's creation.
- Is not being reasonable, I't's one-sided and narrow minded towards the 99% unknowns, not even fair or reasonable towards the millions of other Gods out there.
The Bible is not compatible with science or most scientist would be be Christian, not unbeliever of religion all together.
Noah's story is unscientific and Christians nature environmental road record of being the worst, is not reasonable.. Yes .mysteries in Genesis has many, just not many reasonable ones It can not claim most or all spiritually in everything because it's all 99% unknown and greatly unscientific to us. They are tripping over the light in the dark
Tree of life was taken from the Hindus and the OT in the Bible was taken from the Jew. Oil and opium has been taken from the middle east. The most important plant (cannabis) has been taken from our life.
Homo sapien is closer brother or related more to us than Adam.
The absence of reason is evil
by SaiKit 12 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
by EmVeeT 10 years ago
I came to the HubPages Forum several months ago posting a "challenge" that must have seemed presumptuous (though I didn't intend it) or (perhaps) arrogant of me... By the end of it though, I considered my beliefs to be as substantial, if not moreso, than those of anyone who came to check...
by Eng.M 14 years ago
hexagonal shape of mobile cells is the most efficient shape.dividing mobile stations by these cells enabled people to communicate easily.scientists got the idea after alot of researches of other shapes capabilities.they decided hexagons are the most suitable geometry to didvide coverage areas into...
by Sean Thomas Gartland 10 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by getitrite 7 years ago
Name a scientific theory that was later replaced with a supernatural explanation?If there aren't any, then, why are some people so adamant about religion being taught in schools? And morals can be taught without the plagiarized morals in the Bible/Koran.There seems to be no value at all in...
by Eng.M 13 years ago
with no assumptions madecould anyone write links to some experiments and results those agreed to be prooving natural selection mechanismsI believe we went through this before but with no satsifactory experimental proofs for me at leastthe only thing evolutionist insist on is because some creatures...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|