What the hell are we here for????

[TheDarkHalf]

So, what you are saying is that evolution is our comprehension of the creation stories of the bible? Both are the same but just viewed differently? Ok, I can buy that.
I would ask the question though, which is factual and which is the "interpretation". Did individuals, years ago just use the bible stories because they could not understand evolution, or was evolution someone's excuse for existing?

I'm saying that evolution and creationism are two totally separate ideas, but they are definitely intertwined. I feel like we were created, and with that creation came evolution. To god that evolution was instantaneous, but we view it as occurring over millions of years. Since there is evidence that we evolved in our fossil records, and the fact that the earth is more than 6,000 years old - Through that creation (which with bibilical evidence that it happened as god spoke and scientific evidence stating that creation/evolution took millions or even billions of years), evolution occured, and that's how we view/understand that creation. God however, just saw dust....and than a man and a woman standing there a few seconds or minutes later.

I would have to say both are factual as according to my beliefs. We cannot begin to comprehend (back then, and even now) what it would take to create a life instantly...let alone create them from another plane of existence where there is a displacement of time.

Did individuals, years ago just use the bible stories because they could not understand evolution, or was evolution someone's excuse for existing? I would have to say neither. For all you know those bible stories were explaining what it was like to have the creator come and visit - which had to have sucked for him...who would want to visit this place?? Scientists came up with evolution because of the fossil records and/or because they didn't believe creationism was scientific.

 

[Zero V]

Evolution was created so that the atheist had something to argue against the religious about hahah. Yet to prove it, then again they claim you cant prove the Bible. Evolution is the faith less's faith.

I believe in horizontal evolution is possible, which technically is not evolution but adaptation.

And I believe in God, yet believe in the Darwin Awards hahahah, some times the gene pool needs cleaned.

 

[hardknock]

I'm saying that evolution and creationism are two totally separate ideas, but they are definitely intertwined. I feel like we were created, and with that creation came evolution. To god that evolution was instantaneous, but we view it as occurring over millions of years. Since there is evidence that we evolved in our fossil records, and the fact that the earth is more than 6,000 years old - Through that creation (which with bibilical evidence that it happened as god spoke and scientific evidence stating that creation/evolution took millions or even billions of years), evolution occured, and that's how we view/understand that creation. God however, just saw dust....and than a man and a woman standing there a few seconds or minutes later.

I would have to say both are factual as according to my beliefs. We cannot begin to comprehend (back then, and even now) what it would take to create a life instantly...let alone create them from another plane of existence where there is a displacement of time.

Did individuals, years ago just use the bible stories because they could not understand evolution, or was evolution someone's excuse for existing? I would have to say neither. For all you know those bible stories were explaining what it was like to have the creator come and visit - which had to have sucked for him...who would want to visit this place?? Scientists came up with evolution because of the fossil records and/or because they didn't believe creationism was scientific.

I see your direction, now that you explained it.
Though, they could both be factual, and yet, it could all be just a lie or misunderstanding. None of it could have happened. All could be just in a huge cluster f*. And, there could be nothing. When we think in terms of science, something cannot possibly come from nothing, it is impossible. Yet, how do we truly know this? We know this because of how our science dictates it, correct? But, if we are truly inferior to a higher power then there's no way that our science could explain how something can come from nothing? correct?

While, at the same time. If we are truly inferior to a higher power then how can we possibly claim to understand the bible? Our brains were not designed to understand the depths to which we would need to in order to understand. So, now, we're back to square one with just a story in a book, or a formula for evolution and the big bang.

 

[hardknock]

In your explanation though, we would have to have been created as monkeys then evolved into humans. Now, as the bible explains it, we were yesteryear, as we are today, same image. I'm not talking about Adam and eve, I am talking about the one's which came after.

 

[Zero V]

In your explanation though, we would have to have been created as monkeys then evolved into humans. Now, as the bible explains it, we were yesteryear, as we are today, same image. I'm not talking about Adam and eve, I am talking about the one's which came after.

man never evolved from monkeys. Not a single oz of solid evidence in it. Otherwords we would have hundreds of thousands of "links" but we have none.

We were men from the very beginning.

But like I said horizontal adaptation is possible.

 

[TheDarkHalf]

I see your direction, now that you explained it.
Though, they could both be factual, and yet, it could all be just a lie or misunderstanding. None of it could have happened. All could be just in a huge cluster f*. And, there could be nothing. When we think in terms of science, something cannot possibly come from nothing, it is impossible. Yet, how do we truly know this? We know this because of how our science dictates it, correct? But, if we are truly inferior to a higher power then there's no way that our science could explain how something can come from nothing? correct?

While, at the same time. If we are truly inferior to a higher power then how can we possibly claim to understand the bible? Our brains were not designed to understand the depths to which we would need to in order to understand. So, now, we're back to square one with just a story in a book, or a formula for evolution and the big bang.

You're right. We can't understand or explain any of it, ever (unless we ever achieve the enlightenment and level of existence that God has). But, I believe the creator explained it to us the best that we could through the bible. And he gave us the best explanation he thought was right for the time that the explanation was given; humans were very primitive in those days and explaining how would have just sounded like heresy, and even then in some cases the bible was received as such.

In your explanation though, we would have to have been created as monkeys then evolved into humans. Now, as the bible explains it, we were yesteryear, as we are today, same image. I'm not talking about Adam and eve, I am talking about the one's which came after.

So what if we were created from monkeys. God may have seen something like this......when he began waving his hands together (or whatever is done to create a human) a swirl of dust appears....and as the swirl of dust continues to come together it eventually comes together as a man (and rather quickly i might add). But to us, like i've said before....this process takes millions or billions of years. But to the big guy it's just a matter of seconds. The point is that if we did evolve or adapt or whatever, God has his hand in it.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

man never evolved from monkeys. Not a single oz of solid evidence in it. Otherwords we would have hundreds of thousands of "links" but we have none.

We were men from the very beginning.

But like I said horizontal adaptation is possible.

This entire quotation is completely and blatantly untrue. There is no less abrasive way to say it, other than you are lying or do not know better.

man never evolved from monkeys.

This is a fallacy I often see people of faith [...deliberately...] make, and it is really a clever contorting of concepts that makes the argument compelling. (Fallacies, by nature, are usually quite compelling, but merely intellectually inconsistent.) The argument seems consistent enough: evolution involves transcending or moving beyond one species to another --> humans purportedly moved beyond apes --> apes remain on the earth --> evolution is a flawed construct. Consider, though, the concept of evolution itself.

Evolution is very much a dialectical process - as opposed to the linear process it is made out to be - and therefore species do not so much 'move beyond', but rather, 'move with' other species to produce progress in the evolutionary record. This may produce evolutionary-gaps where less and more primitive sub-species co-exist for periods of time, until adaptability, the environment, or breeding prefer one species to the other - such is/was the case with hominins.

In order for your argument to remain both consistent and valid, we must deliberately reduce evolution to something it is patently not: linear. You are right, insofar as claiming "man never evolved from monkeys": in actuality, we shared a common ancestor, the evidence attendant to which litters the archaeological record. Primitive homo genus sub-species, for example, coexisted for millennia with a subspecies known as Parathropus - with both the greater Australopithicenes and Homo genera sharing a common ape-like ancestor.

Otherwords we would have hundreds of thousands of "links" but we have none.

This is another statement that is flat-out incorrect. Fairly well established is the common ancestry between modern apes and humans, divergent from a 'parent species-set' about ten million years ago. And again: forensic anthropology/archaeology vigorously substantiate this. The various typological and morphological consistencies between homo sapiens and homo erectus, or homo neanderthalus, for example, seem to validate an intricate and nuanced evolutionary process with a wide-range of sub-species of the homo genus being produced.

We were men from the very beginning.

Yes and no. As a homo subspecies, we have not undergone any earnest evolution since our estimated arrival as ancient homo sapiens sapiens approximately 400, 000 years ago. However, our divergence from the ancestral ape line several thousand millennia prior resulted in the production of a wide-range of interrelated genera with more-or-less hominid-like characteristics.

 

[Zero V]

You can claim monkey hood if you want. I will stick to being strictly a higher life form :wave2:

I have yet to see a "missing link" fossil, other than that one they thought they found, but turned out not to be. I suppose you believe a velociraptor shrank down and grew feathers and a beak, lost its teeth, jumped into the air one day and flew. Now we have pigeons, right? Kinda a big fall back for a once mighty species.

Plus evolution means stronger, better, faster. Ironically we grow weaker, our genetic potential dimensishes each generation, and our DNA becomes more corrupt over time. Alternations would mean mutation, and mutation to DNA means death. DNA does not change, it slowly degrades. It is a patent, a plan. Also you will notice when they do find "surviving ancient species" off some random coast, or secluded island....they have changed NONE....wouldnt they have evolved more since they are a million year old species?

We could be growing weaker possibly from our ignorant drives into technology, and the crap we are exposing our bodies to.

I do believe in adaptation. Which is different than evolution, but has similar ideals in a species ability to change, but inherently remain the same.

Everything science has on evolution is speculation and theories. The same thing Region has in its books. No?

They have those ideas for links. But there is no ape-man ratio link. Ever think, a higher intelligence, made monkeys as well, as a spin off from us in its desires to populate the world with a variety of creatures?

 

[TheDarkHalf]

You can claim monkey hood if you want. I will stick to being strictly a higher life form :wave2:

I have yet to see a "missing link" fossil, other than that one they thought they found, but turned out not to be. I suppose you believe a velociraptor shrank down and grew feathers and a beak, lost its teeth, jumped into the air one day and flew. Now we have pigeons, right?

:icon_lol:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You can claim monkey hood if you want. I will stick to being strictly a higher life form :wave2:

I have yet to see a "missing link" fossil, other than that one they thought they found, but turned out not to be.

Nope. Evolution is not linear, and to assume that the absence of a "missing link" fossil negates the entire theory is preposterous - you are not presenting evolution, nor understanding evolution, in a manner that makes your argument valid. In fact, "the because it has not been proven, it is disproven is another formal fallacy. I will address the evolution issue with more depth and breadth below.

I suppose you believe a velociraptor shrank down and grew feathers and a beak, lost its teeth, jumped into the air one day and flew. Now we have pigeons, right? Kinda a big fall back for a once mighty species.

Again, you misunderstand the premise of evolution, and continue to portray it as a linear process to bolster your argument. Evolution does not mean linear progress in regard to the size and strength of an animal: it is a dynamic process that requires an organism or set of organisms meeting the progressive demands of a changing environment. Consider your ill-thought velociraptor statement, for example. For several million years massive organisms [dinosaurs] dominated the landscape over primitive mammals and birds because the environmental conditions predicated that dominance: massive oxygen levels allowed for the flourishing of mega-flora, and subsequent mega-fauna. Dinosaurs existed as such large animals because the environment was possible for such an existence. Enter a catastrophic event. The landscape alters, the vast majority of the food supply is eliminated, temperatures and oxygen levels drop, and the environmental conditions are no longer conducive to 60ft long beasts with muscular and hemodynamic systems that require levels of food and oxygen no longer existent. In this environment, the primitive mammal and bird species once relegated to niches by the predominating dinosaurs are now equipped with the biology to flourish in this newly created environment: their small size comes adjacent with low oxygen and food demands, and the new era of fauna begins with the new environment - that is evolution.

By the way, velociraptors did have feathers, a beak-like structure, were about the size of a turkey, and have been postulated as the direct descendent of modern prey-birds - not sure your example was the greatest choice. You should base your concepts of dinosaurs less on Creationism and Jurassic Park, and more on facts!

Plus evolution means stronger, better, faster.

No here as well. You misunderstand evolution.

Ironically we grow weaker, our genetic potential dimensishes each generation, and our DNA becomes more corrupt over time.

No, it does not. The average height and muscular weight for adolescents has secularly progressed over the past 150 years, and the average pubertal age has decreased secularly over that same period due to advancements in quality of living, food supply, medicine and so forth. Again, you chose a very poor example.

Alternations would mean mutation, and mutation to DNA means death. DNA does not change, it slowly degrades.

No, again. Point mutations due to physical, chemical and environmental conditions can often arise in the expression of adaptive gene expression - that is, genes that cause the organism to adapt and flourish in its surroundings. This is most obvious in the phenotypic variation of bacterial and viral strains due to chemical mutagens being introduced into the genome - the bacteria or virus undergoes point mutations to its genome, making it resistant to the chemical at hand; in other words: multiple-drug-resistant-bacteria. Mutation often means the complete opposite of what you are suggesting.

A good place to brush up on genetics is usually viral/bacterlal research, as geneticists endeavor to establish new modalities to combat MDRV/B. An tremendous example of chemical-mutagen induced point mutations is E. Coli.

It is a patent, a plan. Also you will notice when they do find "surviving ancient species" off some random coast, or secluded island....they have changed NONE....wouldnt they have evolved more since they are a million year old species?

Why would something evolve if the predatory system inherent within a closed system never alters? Open geographical systems induce mutation because the predatory hierarchy alters over time due to a myriad of factors; the same cannot be said about closed island systems, for example. The most seen adaptation is diminishing size to cope with a diminishing food supply and/or decreased predatory risk in the closed system. Isolated environments are almost never conducive to apex predators due to small food supplies, and therefore prey animals usually have no stimuli to introduce necessary adaptation - i.e., they do not need to evolve. Again, I think you are gravely misunderstanding evolution and picking very poor examples.

We could be growing weaker possibly from our ignorant drives into technology, and the crap we are exposing our bodies to.

We are not growing genetically weaker, though. We are undergoing constant morphological change due to fluctuations in the level of the processing of food supply, but that is not a genetic issue - evolution is genetics. In fact, our genetic potential is constantly increasing, and this is displayed in terms of average height, average muscular weight, pubertal induction and so forth.

I do believe in adaptation. Which is different than evolution, but has similar ideals in a species ability to change, but inherently remain the same.

This is pure nonsense, and again: there is no light way to put that. If a species has "adapted", it has not remained the same; particularly if that adaptation was a mutation of the genome that produces generational changes to morphology.

You understand that evolution refers to primarily genetic alterations, and not just morphological alterations, yes?

They have those ideas for links. But there is no ape-man ratio link. Ever think, a higher intelligence, made monkeys as well, as a spin off from us in its desires to populate the world with a variety of creatures?

No, again. I'm not sure what you mean by "ape-man ratio", but I assume it stems from you assuming that evolution is a linear process.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

....

I also feel your understanding of the periodicities of evolution is a bit warped, so to speak. In regard to our mutations discussion, for example: a point mutation expressed on a specific allele due to [say] random insertion may not manifest metabolic or morphological changes in the organism until it is replicated hundreds of billions of times, or until an environmental stimuli activates that dominant mutation.

So, in that light, consider your velociraptor example. A point mutation on a specific allele may have allowed for phenotypic variations in muscle and bone metabolic genes, that themselves allowed the morphological variations necessary for flight. As environmental conditions remain the same, this gene was continually replicated and replicated through successive generations and into sub-species derived from the velociraptor without expression. Again, enter a catastrophic event that alters the environment, and subspecies which inherited this dormant mutation over hundreds of thousands of generations encounter an environment which stimulates the production of this gene.

 

[Zero V]

Oy I have gotten into this one too many times so far this year, skipping it this time. It gets tiring, my back puts me in constant pain, and I need another nap on the heating pad atm...

This is the same thing as arguing Christianity or Muslim or Jewish. There is no winner....so I will leave it to its peace.

Like I said I believe in adaptation, and limited change in species. But there is seemingly no precursor to the modern dog from ancient times. Not that I know of(considering the millions of animals that have been, easy to miss).

If what you said is true. Then there ARE lesser races of man, and some are superior. Therefore some will eventually outdo others, and technically racism isnt wrong, its natural....I think we are all equal, but evolution means survival of the fittest, if that law had been applied, many races would have been wiped clean off the face of the earth a century ago.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Oy I have gotten into this one too many times so far this year, skipping it this time. It gets tiring, my back puts me in constant pain, and I need another nap on the heating pad atm...

This is the same thing as arguing Christianity or Muslim or Jewish. There is no winner....so I will leave it to its peace.

Fair enough.

Like I said I believe in adaptation, and limited change in species. But there is seemingly no precursor to the modern dog from ancient times. Not that I know of(considering the millions of animals that have been, easy to miss).

There is. Modern bears and dogs share a common ancestral history, divergent several million years ago. This animal, in turn, shares a common history with "Animal X" and so forth.

If what you said is true. Then there ARE lesser races of man, and some are superior. Therefore some will eventually outdo others, and technically racism isnt wrong, its natural....I think we are all equal, but evolution means survival of the fittest, if that law had been applied, many races would have been wiped clean off the face of the earth a century ago.

I am not a social darwinist, and tend to avoid using evolution to justify latent racist opinions. Also, "race" is not a morphological-variation issue, it is a typology issue. Such as: a black cat, and an orange cat; they share the exact same genetic structure and morphology, they are just different typologies. All humans are equal genetically, as we are all homo sapiens sapiens. To speak to your point, there were several other homo genus variations, homo erectus and neanderthalis, for example. The gene which expresses red hair in our species, for example, is derived from the neanderthalis species - the predominant theory is that we outbred with neanderthalis in our expansion.

 

[Zero V]

There is. Modern bears and dogs share a common ancestral history, divergent several million years ago. This animal, in turn, shares a common history with "Animal X" and so forth.

Understood, but technically we can find a way to say a damn frog is related to a T-Rex using that protocol.

I am not a social darwinist, and tend to avoid using evolution to justify latent racist opinions. Also, "race" is not a morphological-variation issue, it is a typology issue. Such as: a black cat, and an orange cat; they share the exact same genetic structure and morphology, they are just different typologies. All humans are equal genetically, as we are all homo sapiens sapiens. To speak to your point, there were several other homo genus variations, homo erectus and neanderthalis, for example. The gene which expresses red hair in our species, for example, is derived from the neanderthalis species - the predominant theory is that we outbred with neanderthalis in our expansion.

A pig, and a wild boar, will inevitably, according to evolution, go down different evolutionary paths. Quite possibly both would be unrecognizable from every once being related millions of years down the road. Same thing applies to humans.

I apply Darwinism for laughs(such as Darwin awards, jokes about cleaning the gene pool, etc).

Man will eventually not be man no more then. We will eventually become a completely new species. There has been no evolution in humans since the dawn of human history. There has been adaptation(change in height, skin tone, size). Dont confuse adaptation with evolution.

If memory serves me there were 2 cave man varieties of us according to science. One of which survived, the other of which met with extinction (the neanderthals you mentioned). But even they dont show an affirmative link to monkeys, in any way to me. There were also a few ab-human sub types that just dead end...

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Understood, but technically we can find a way to say a damn frog is related to a T-Rex using that protocol.

Not necessarily. Your argument only holds if we shallow and broaden the definition of evolution so fervently just in case any ol' premise fits. In that case, and from the position your are extolling here, we are no longer debating a classically-defined "theory of evolution", but something else entirely.

Man will eventually not be man no more then. We will eventually become a completely new species. There has been no evolution in humans since the dawn of human history. There has been adaptation(change in height, skin tone, size). Dont confuse adaptation with evolution.

I certainly do not, but you quite obviously do. You again misunderstand what constitutes evolution and its relation with taxonomy: depending on how you define "man", there have been multiple evolutions of "man". As homo sapiens sapiens we have not undergone evolution, however; "we" have existed as hominins for millions of years. Also, I have never stated homo sapiens sapiens has evolved.

If memory serves me there were 2 cave man varieties of us according to science. One of which survived, the other of which met with extinction (the neanderthals you mentioned). But even they dont show an affirmative link to monkeys, in any way to me. There were also a few ab-human sub types that just dead end...

I have no idea what you mean by "cave men", to be honest, ha ha. As I said, there are quite a number of species in the homo genus, and some quite recent: two distinct species [one on an island system] existed as morphologically distinct species as late as 16, 000 years ago. These tiny island people are debatable as a distinct species, though.

It is interesting you bring up Neanderthals, as they directly refute your point! Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Neanderthal fossil records actually reveal them to be more genetically similar to modern chimpanzees than humans, and; to further put thrust to your argument, Neanderthals are considered a sub-species to humans - i.e., incredibly similar.

 

[hardknock]

So what if we were created from monkeys. God may have seen something like this......when he began waving his hands together (or whatever is done to create a human) a swirl of dust appears....and as the swirl of dust continues to come together it eventually comes together as a man (and rather quickly i might add). But to us, like i've said before....this process takes millions or billions of years. But to the big guy it's just a matter of seconds. The point is that if we did evolve or adapt or whatever, God has his hand in it.

You can't have that standing because of the "facts" of Christianity, if that is what you believe in? I am referring to the bold statement. So, you are saying that if there was an evolution from monkeys, which is not the exact thing that I was referring to, but for simplistic reasons, we will go with that subject matter, then "GOD" is the reason for this occurrence?

That is kind of like agreeing that guns don't kill people but people do and then saying that guns kill people.

 

[hardknock]

This entire quotation is completely and blatantly untrue. There is no less abrasive way to say it, other than you are lying or do not know better.



This is a fallacy I often see people of faith [...deliberately...] make, and it is really a clever contorting of concepts that makes the argument compelling. (Fallacies, by nature, are usually quite compelling, but merely intellectually inconsistent.) The argument seems consistent enough: evolution involves transcending or moving beyond one species to another --> humans purportedly moved beyond apes --> apes remain on the earth --> evolution is a flawed construct. Consider, though, the concept of evolution itself.

Evolution is very much a dialectical process - as opposed to the linear process it is made out to be - and therefore species do not so much 'move beyond', but rather, 'move with' other species to produce progress in the evolutionary record. This may produce evolutionary-gaps where less and more primitive sub-species co-exist for periods of time, until adaptability, the environment, or breeding prefer one species to the other - such is/was the case with hominins.

In order for your argument to remain both consistent and valid, we must deliberately reduce evolution to something it is patently not: linear. You are right, insofar as claiming "man never evolved from monkeys": in actuality, we shared a common ancestor, the evidence attendant to which litters the archaeological record. Primitive homo genus sub-species, for example, coexisted for millennia with a subspecies known as Parathropus - with both the greater Australopithicenes and Homo genera sharing a common ape-like ancestor.



This is another statement that is flat-out incorrect. Fairly well established is the common ancestry between modern apes and humans, divergent from a 'parent species-set' about ten million years ago. And again: forensic anthropology/archaeology vigorously substantiate this. The various typological and morphological consistencies between homo sapiens and homo erectus, or homo neanderthalus, for example, seem to validate an intricate and nuanced evolutionary process with a wide-range of sub-species of the homo genus being produced.



Yes and no. As a homo subspecies, we have not undergone any earnest evolution since our estimated arrival as ancient homo sapiens sapiens approximately 400, 000 years ago. However, our divergence from the ancestral ape line several thousand millennia prior resulted in the production of a wide-range of interrelated genera with more-or-less hominid-like characteristics.

Solid thorough explanation of some facts about evolution. I've tried to explain that it was not specifically linear progression for about 12 years now, but, I digress and beat my head into a brick wall and just go for the simple argument of the "human from monkey path". It seems that more people understand what I am saying even if they don't agree, when I take that approach.

 

[TheDarkHalf]

You can't have that standing because of the "facts" of Christianity, if that is what you believe in? I am referring to the bold statement. So, you are saying that if there was an evolution from monkeys, which is not the exact thing that I was referring to, but for simplistic reasons, we will go with that subject matter, then "GOD" is the reason for this occurrence?

That is kind of like agreeing that guns don't kill people but people do and then saying that guns kill people.

Yes. I am a christian.

I've said this a few times already and the point i've been trying to make.....for all we know we did evolve from monkeys, dinosaurs, whatever. That's how we visually see and view our creation.

But to God, we were created instantly.

The link is that we can't view that instant creation....but we can view how that creation progressed over time in our time/dimension/plane of existence, hence why we see an evolution of man.

And guns don't kill people.....I kill people.

 

[hardknock]

Yes. I am a christian.

I've said this a few times already and the point i've been trying to make.....for all we know we did evolve from monkeys, dinosaurs, whatever. That's how we visually see and view our creation.

But to God, we were created instantly.

The link is that we can't view that instant creation....but we can view how that creation progressed over time in our time/dimension/plane of existence, hence why we see an evolution of man.

And guns don't kill people.....I kill people.

That is a good, valid, point; however, this begs the question to why evolution then? Why not some other form that we could see and it could be called alsa;gajgq8g-qgq8hga, or whatever.

You are saying that no matter what our explanation ends up being, it is how "god" wanted us to view it. Which, is, in fact, the best way for us to understand it.

So, god could have said...let there be light, and it was instant. Yet, when man viewed that occurrence, it could have been a star exploding, that's what your saying in some sense. But, in the end, no matter what, it was god's work that caused that explosion so that we would be able to comprehend it in our "time/plane/dimension" of thought....i got you on that. I do not at all agree, but I do respect you for your point of view.

 

[TheDarkHalf]

That is a good, valid, point; however, this begs the question to why evolution then? Why not some other form that we could see and it could be called alsa;gajgq8g-qgq8hga, or whatever.

You are saying that no matter what our explanation ends up being, it is how "god" wanted us to view it. Which, is, in fact, the best way for us to understand it.

So, god could have said...let there be light, and it was instant. Yet, when man viewed that occurrence, it could have been a star exploding, that's what your saying in some sense. But, in the end, no matter what, it was god's work that caused that explosion so that we would be able to comprehend it in our "time/plane/dimension" of thought....i got you on that. I do not at all agree, but I do respect you for your point of view.

Exactly. You got it!

 

[RenegadeRows]

I'm here because I'm here.

"What is the meaning of life?" asked the young man.
"Raking" I replied as I made a neat pile of leaves.

"What is zen?" asked the young monk.
"Rice and vegetables" said the old man, between bites.



I prefer the simple eastern approach, rather than going into talks about darwin, aliens, God, the devil and those annoying cavemen on tv.

Everyone's answers are within themselves, or right in front of their eyes.
Peace,
J

 

[TheDarkHalf]

I'm here because I'm here.

"What is the meaning of life?" asked the young man.
"Raking" I replied as I made a neat pile of leaves.

"What is zen?" asked the young monk.
"Rice and vegetables" said the old man, between bites.



I prefer the simple eastern approach, rather than going into talks about darwin, aliens, God, the devil and those annoying cavemen on tv.

Everyone's answers are within themselves, or right in front of their eyes.
Peace,
J

FTW:clap2:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Okay, generally and sans Christianity, I just feel that wouldn't a human conscience asking all these philosophical questions about life and wondering about life after death, highly suggest there might be something more to it all??? If macro evolution occurred from life forms mutating to better adapt, then at what point would we have had to adapt to form a conscience that is so focused on emotions, life purposes, and religiosity?? It strongly suggests something bigger to it all.. just a thought

It may, but it is also viably explained within an evolutionary context. Consider our closest relatives on this planet, Chimpanzees: mates are often chosen based on trustworthiness, the pack communicates frequently and intricately, and the social dynamic of the pack is complex and based on emotionality and politics - i.e., the predominant Chimpanzees must be adept in both a physical and emotional/psychological context in order to remain predominant. In this respect, Chimpanzees complex social dynamics necessitate higher brain function, and this higher brain function also assists in keeping them alive; you can Google the process Chimpanzees undergo when a rival pack intrudes to validate this.

While it is impossible to know for certain, a prominent theory regarding our predomination of other homo sapiens sub species is precisely this emotionality: our high level of brain function, ability to navigate social situations and a keen focus on communication were and are unmatched tools of survival, beyond physical assets. In the progression of the homo genus, and homo sapiens sub-species in particular, we see a secularly progressive increase in cranium volume, with diminishing physical robustness - i.e., we evolved the capacity for thought as an evolutionary mechanism over physical tools. This does not strongly suggest purposive creation, lest that be the theory which strongly tints your lens anyway.

Finally, and this is attendant to your previous point, can we please have an honest and legitimate debate regarding evolution? To put it bluntly: the theory of evolution is a theory to the extent to which macro-physical gravity and the existence of black holes are theories - i.e., considerable discourses rages as to the specific form they may take, but it is far more nuanced and advanced than exist v., does not exist. If you have a substantiated and evidential explanation regarding the disproval of evolution - and by substantiated, I mean an inter-subjective, interpretative body of evidence presented with an attempt to truth and objectivity, to the extent to which they both exist - I am more than willing to entertain it; however, blatant and deliberate fallacies of argument contorting and shallowing evolution to something it is not, is certainly not something I will not consider substantiated!

The fact is: evolution does not necessarily negate religion, nor the existence of God or god or gods; not at all. And so, the thrust of my argument is not to diminish your faith, but rather: I merely want to have an honest and intellectually-sound discussion of what you consider to be a "theory". This careful positioning of concepts and phrases evidenced by some in this thread clearly represent fallacious reasoning, and often times a great number of fallacies per statement. Let us debate each theory in the context of its system parameters, rather than trying to twist it into something else altogether to bolster our argument. You don't walk onto a Soccer field and start playing Football rules, just as you don't start talking about evolution with some ridiculous linearly-causative notion of progress.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

-that's all true, and i don't have any substantiated evidence to disprove evolution (i'm 19 yrs old), previously i am quite aware of trying to twist the debated theories into another topic, its just my own biases at work.

Fair enough. So: if you have no evidential case against evolution, than why constantly refer to it as "up for debate"?

 

[hardknock]

I'm here because I'm here.

"What is the meaning of life?" asked the young man.
"Raking" I replied as I made a neat pile of leaves.

"What is zen?" asked the young monk.
"Rice and vegetables" said the old man, between bites.



I prefer the simple eastern approach, rather than going into talks about darwin, aliens, God, the devil and those annoying cavemen on tv.

Everyone's answers are within themselves, or right in front of their eyes.
Peace,
J

Yep! Sounds good to me, also, that was the question. "Have you ever wondered why you are here"...the question was never has anyone ever tried to write a thesis about it...

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science.First is, The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) which says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.

No it does not, and you are misinterpreting the Second Law and the concept of entropy itself. This quote, whether yours or the work of another author, is both patently incorrect and blatantly misleading. It is not about equilibrium v., disorder, in your subjective terms, but the predictability v., spontaneity of molecules in the known universe.

The Second Law is a predictive system regarding a system's [or for our purposes, and object's] propensity to commit spontaneous action, actually: it does not state this is impossible, as you incorrectly lay out here. As well, spontaneous point mutations in an organism's DNA are direct increasers of this system's [the earth's] entropy - i.e., the use of nutrients, sunlight, matter and so forth in a directed manner vastly outweigh the disorganization a randomly evolving animal introduces to the environment, and this is in accordance with the fact organisms produce energy themselves.

And finally, the Second Law does not state, in anyway, that molecules cannot spontaneously form - in fact, the Second Law of Chemical Thermodynamics, something creationists are not familiar with, directly states that spontaneous combination of chemical ingredients is the only plausible explanation for the creation of macro-physical objects from existing elements.

There is absolutely no portion of your statement that is consistent in anyway with physical or chemical thermodynamics, and it is nothing more or less than a bold-faced lie. This kind of crap-behavior irritates me, because people not-so inclined tend to believe it. If you wrote this yourself, I would suggest reading much further on the Second Law on a website/book that was created by a legitimate physicist, and not a Creationist. The latter blatantly misunderstands the nuance of the second law, and tends to lie outright.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Why is it still open for debate?? because there is yet to be substantial evidence arguing for one way or another

Yes, there is. There is incredibly exhaustive and substantive bodies of evidence in the fields of archaeology, anthropology, forensic anthropology, genetics, cosmology and so forth that directly contradict your point. You are misrepresenting "the facts", so to speak.

I threw up that previous post to show you what i mean..all information gathered can be interpretated different ways. that's why i threw in the towel for the debate..

Yes, but outright lying or having no idea what you are talking about is not valid interpretation, it is called "bullshitting". Quite frankly, I get irritated that many religious individuals assume reading the bible qualifies their opinions on genetics, physics and evolution as proxy-valid, and thereby as significant opposition to established trends in science over the past 100 years - they do not!

Let us state honesty here: there is absolutely no serious debate as to the validity of the "theory" of Evolution in legitimate, non-religious, scientific circles - none. If you claim there is, you are either lying or do not know better. Have your faith, and enjoy it, but stop muddying the waters of science with shambolic nonsense about this and that because you feel threatened.

and besides, the joy of knowing i have eternal life, just because I accept the love of my God and not from how 'good' i am, (cuz i'm a shitbag lol)

Sure. You can do whatever you please, as long as you stop doing what you are doing here.

 

[D3vildog]

Who knew body builder's had such deep, confusing, scary thoughts....

Try not to think yourself out of existence guys. lol

 

[Carcaya]

We are here to love

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Well i feel your response shows how subjective everything is. You think i'm lying cuz i interpreted the information drastically different than you. I wasn't trying to unravel evolution with that post, just trying to make the point that there is always gonna be a debate cuz people will always have their own biased subjective interpretation on what they see in front of their face. I should have explained more of what i was getting at with the Law' issue but since i royally pissed someone off, i'm going to just shut up now. Wasn't trying to be a.. lying *******? well if anyone is mislead by what i have written, I'll say for Soldier's sake.. forget that biased crap and just listen to everyone elses biased..truths?

No, and what you are doing here is creating a diversionary argument to detract from what is really being spoken about here, another disappointing tactic. We are not speaking about the individuated, phenomenal experience of objects accorded ontological status, and how this produces inconsistencies in interpretation; if anything, we are speaking about consistent interpretations of phenomenal objects over time that become inter-subjectively verified over time - i.e., "the facts".

Your interpretations are fine, but you are introducing them as supposedly significant contributions to a scientific debate, when they are not - in fact, the notion you are attempting to introduce, at base, is that there is discontinuity in a debate that really does not exist!

Interpretations are like lines on a piece of paper, and each individual, or school of thought, or religion has its own line: given the subjectivity of each individuated line, these lines-of-thought cannot be taken as valid in-and-of-themselves. And so, where does that leave us? Religious individuals presenting inconsistent arguments would often have us believe that the supposed disconnectedness of these lines produces enough variance such that no observable phenomena, or set of phenomena, can said to be "true" to the extent to which "truth" exists; and so, nothing can be objectively invalidated. Again, a very simple logical fallacy that is easily defeated.

The deconstruction of the word "truth" leads to nothing more or less than the concept of inter-subjectivity itself - that is, we accord things as "true" when unaffiliated groups of individuals tend to agree in the overwhelming majority over time. In the line example, where the lines almost always cross spontaneously, we say these things are "true".

Now, the lines almost always cross at evolution, and almost never cross at your arguments - at least, they never cross in unaffiliated individuals. The fact is jarvy: there is no considerable debate about the science of evolution, or whether or not it exists.

 

[javry]

i don't like pissing people off, so i deleted my posts, its not worth it to me. i guess i'll stick to supplements,

 

[javry]

i understand now, because of the subject of this thread i was not limiting my thoughts in my head to science. I know i kept going to other things but i wasn't trying to be decietful. Because of my beliefs when i think of a debate about evolution.. i instinctively think of Religion vs Evolution. I see how you became so frustrated with me. well i know i can't argue only science cuz i don't know that material well enuf

 

[javry]

and that concludes it for me, i hope you can find someone smart enuf to competently have a scientific debate about this with you. I have erred for trying in the first place. But my intentions stand. We're here to accept his Love and recieve an incredible gift for no reason! lol (Just ignore that last part cuz i might have said that b4)

 

[Mulletsoldier]

i don't like pissing people off, so i deleted my posts, its not worth it to me. i guess i'll stick to supplements,

You are not pissing me off, your arguments are just silly and irritating. This is the internet, not real life. I get pissed off when I make mistakes; I get irritated when people regurgitate information that is entirely inconsistent with well-established trends, untruthfully. I respect your religion and your right to it, but let us discuss each respective social reality attendant to the trends, norms, and system parameters well-established therein.

Science cannot be used to debate strictly-religious concepts, and vice-versa, because each is beyond the empirical scope of the other. You validate or invalidate things only when the "object" you seek to validate/invalidate can be referenced via other "objects" external to it, adherent to the same "laws" of the system you are operating from within. This is why, logically, religion and science are counteractive: they are both "true" in the context of their respective ontologies/epistemologies, and therefore are internally-valid.

Let's take the concept of gravity. I start with a notion: there is something that is keeping both me and this rock on the surface of the earth, it seems to be applied equally to both objects, and I believe it to be a phenomenon known as "gravity". Now, how do I prove this thing's existence? Well, I attempt to reference its existence with indexical objects within the system I feel gravity operates within, that seem to adhere to the same governing "laws" [gravity is a law, in this case]. E.g.) I do not float away when I walk, the molecules in my body are held together by some force, as are the molecules in that rock, and this force appears applicable to each object equally - therefore, I have a justified, true belief that "gravity" exists.

Now, religion places itself beyond the reach of empirical criticism and into the world of solipsism by creating its own "laws" and "system parameters", that are consistent only with its own internal logic. And, because of this internal consistency, referencing objects external to it is fruitless, because they do not adhere to the same "system parameters". (Remembering the only way to validate something is to index another object attendant to the same laws of governance applied equally.) So, any argument made from a religious viewpoint is technically logically consistent, just in case it consistently presents the own internal laws of religion. This is why, despite their absurdity, religious arguments are impossible to defeat by objective means.

So, the point is: when you are debating 'X' object in the scientifically verifiable world, stop debating on the premises of religion. It doesn't work that way. As I said, you don't play football by basketball's rules, and then point out the inconsistencies as proof of how great and valid basketball is. People will just say, "Chill out man, you're playing the wrong game".

 

[javry]

that's why i deleted the posts lol cuz i realized i wasn't playing the right game., thank you for respecting my beliefs, a lot of people feel that i am arguing for Christianity to prove that my belief is right. But that is not it. i argue on like an idiot because i want you and everybody i know to believe in the incredible gift that we have in store for us. No strings attached lol. Cyanara

 

[DEADn]

I think to understand what we are here for or why we are hear, you have to use a higher power as a point of reference. I don't think it is as easy as just choosing a higher power because so many of them contradict each other. You have to find the one that is set apart.

Evolution doesn't give you any kind of hope for anything. It basically said we just happened.

I would steer anyone towards God through Christianity but not necessarily the church. Just to focus on what the bible says and see if it makes sense and go from there.

All in all, it has to be something from outside of yourself and outside of man. Otherwise why ask such a question?

DEADn

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I think they are fundamentally different questions, as well. Saying, "Why are we here?" implies that the asker feels our existence is, or should be, purposeful. Saying, "How are we here?" is a question much more fit for evolution.