no it doesnt i have really big feetSEREMAKER wrote:
if this is your best remark to my post, its makes me wonder about your intelligence and if your IQ is equal to your shoe sizeherrr_smity wrote:
are you willfully ignorant or just stupidSEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
Sorry if this has been answered already.SEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
We didn't evolve from monkeys, we followed the same evolutionary path as them. Ergo..humans and monkeys both came from the same dna pool but each evolved seperately. They're like our 2nd cousins rather than us being their offspring.
....Also, humans are still evolving, just checkout the avergae height now compared with 300 years ago....
1) Sarcasm or Seriousness?Alexanderthegrape wrote:
God days ( the seven day creation thingy ) are exactly 0.987675 billion years. Dinosaurs are Satans spawn meant to trick man into believing that the Earth wasn't created in seven days.
But, duh, God days are like dog years in reverse, so they can TOTALLY coexist.
2) If serious, how do you explain Adam and Eve?
Is average human hight an evolutionary process? I don't think so, no data for this BTW, but if our diet and health care was to revert to the same as it was x years ago, wouldn't our average hight become lower again?
BTW, as a general rule when i was at school, every year was taller, except those born about 1981, this year group was noticeably shorter. After that is got back to normal. We always assumed that it was an external environmental cause for this. WDYT?
There haven't been many posts to th original question, personally as a non-religious person i don't think the two camps can co-exist. But i am happy to say there is never likely to be any solid proof either way.
Evolution FTW.
Sorry to add more options to this, but on the original posts idea, what would be the outcome of discovering 'life' on another planet to this worlds religious beliefs, would this shatter any of them because they have subscribed to there being no other life? (life BTW is anything eg. bacteria)
(and would there be any difference if this life was intelligent)
BTW, as a general rule when i was at school, every year was taller, except those born about 1981, this year group was noticeably shorter. After that is got back to normal. We always assumed that it was an external environmental cause for this. WDYT?
There haven't been many posts to th original question, personally as a non-religious person i don't think the two camps can co-exist. But i am happy to say there is never likely to be any solid proof either way.
Evolution FTW.
Sorry to add more options to this, but on the original posts idea, what would be the outcome of discovering 'life' on another planet to this worlds religious beliefs, would this shatter any of them because they have subscribed to there being no other life? (life BTW is anything eg. bacteria)
(and would there be any difference if this life was intelligent)
QFTSh1fty2k5 wrote:
Creationism isn't more real than flying seals, thats how they co-exist
SEREMAKER: Evolution takes millions and millions of years. It's hardly been a thousand if that since we've set up large societies.
By the definition of humanity, we'll never evolve in to mutants.
Quit being brain-fucked by X-Men.
The thing about creationism is that it's brilliant. It's in a bullshit book that bullshitters believe and it's a bullshit theory, but there's no evidence of it. Well, there shouldn't be any evidence of it because we all popped on this earth screaming DURKA DURKA BITCHES! and just went from there. That's what supposeduly happened, and that's what "evidently" happened because there is no evidence what so ever. That's why it's brilliant. It's a brilliant prank.
Evolution, however does have evidence and we do have evidence of what the earth was like before life existed on it.
So I believe in evolution.
By the definition of humanity, we'll never evolve in to mutants.
Quit being brain-fucked by X-Men.
The thing about creationism is that it's brilliant. It's in a bullshit book that bullshitters believe and it's a bullshit theory, but there's no evidence of it. Well, there shouldn't be any evidence of it because we all popped on this earth screaming DURKA DURKA BITCHES! and just went from there. That's what supposeduly happened, and that's what "evidently" happened because there is no evidence what so ever. That's why it's brilliant. It's a brilliant prank.
Evolution, however does have evidence and we do have evidence of what the earth was like before life existed on it.
So I believe in evolution.
Christianity doesnt say there isnt any other life in the universe. Maybe we have some friends somewhere elseUse0fWeapons wrote:
Sorry to add more options to this, but on the original posts idea, what would be the outcome of discovering 'life' on another planet to this worlds religious beliefs, would this shatter any of them because they have subscribed to there being no other life? (life BTW is anything eg. bacteria)
(and would there be any difference if this life was intelligent)
If other life is found, the Christians will just say God created that life too (for whatever reason, maybe to "test our faith" or "give us intellectual stimulation"). They will never accept that random chance is just as, if not more likely than what they believe in, no matter how little evidence they have to substantiate their beliefs or how much evidence points to them being wrong. Marconius said it best: faith is the death of free thought (or something to that effect).JaMDuDe wrote:
Christianity doesnt say there isnt any other life in the universe. Maybe we have some friends somewhere elseUse0fWeapons wrote:
Sorry to add more options to this, but on the original posts idea, what would be the outcome of discovering 'life' on another planet to this worlds religious beliefs, would this shatter any of them because they have subscribed to there being no other life? (life BTW is anything eg. bacteria)
(and would there be any difference if this life was intelligent)
The only thing that will prove religion wrong is time. Lots of it. Enough time for society to evolve beyond the need to explain that which they cannot comprehend with God. That won't be in any of our lifetimes.
why can't evolution be the method of creationism. No one (Except maybe whore tv evangelest) say creationism was instantaious ... being able to see the atomic make up of something does not negate it origin or creator.
Last edited by jsnipy (2006-07-30 18:18:40)
Example. Say if ants come accross a cake sitting on the counter .. some were there that night when the baker put it there .. and those ants know "the baker" made the cake.
Lets say the baker's mother dies and he has to leave immediately to go out of town... the cake remains a feeding source for the ant colony ... generations of ants come and go ....
Now the the next genertation of ant's (assuming these are science ants ) determine the cake if made of butter, eggs, flour, etc. And they discover that what makes this up underwhat tremendous heat...more so than the ants could produce. With this knowdledge the ant's don't beleive in "the baker" since they know how the cake was made.
Can't both things co-exist?
Lets say the baker's mother dies and he has to leave immediately to go out of town... the cake remains a feeding source for the ant colony ... generations of ants come and go ....
Now the the next genertation of ant's (assuming these are science ants ) determine the cake if made of butter, eggs, flour, etc. And they discover that what makes this up underwhat tremendous heat...more so than the ants could produce. With this knowdledge the ant's don't beleive in "the baker" since they know how the cake was made.
Can't both things co-exist?
Last edited by jsnipy (2006-07-30 18:24:47)
Humans will never know the answer to existance.
Because there is no answer..... it just is
Get over it, now go out and play..... and be nice.
Because there is no answer..... it just is
Get over it, now go out and play..... and be nice.
Why couldnt God create other life? Random chance isnt as likely and there isnt good evidence for it. If you think having faith means your not a free thinker maybe you should look around. There have been and are plenty of free-thinkers that have faith.Skruples wrote:
If other life is found, the Christians will just say God created that life too (for whatever reason, maybe to "test our faith" or "give us intellectual stimulation"). They will never accept that random chance is just as, if not more likely than what they believe in, no matter how little evidence they have to substantiate their beliefs or how much evidence points to them being wrong. Marconius said it best: faith is the death of free thought (or something to that effect).JaMDuDe wrote:
Christianity doesnt say there isnt any other life in the universe. Maybe we have some friends somewhere elseUse0fWeapons wrote:
Sorry to add more options to this, but on the original posts idea, what would be the outcome of discovering 'life' on another planet to this worlds religious beliefs, would this shatter any of them because they have subscribed to there being no other life? (life BTW is anything eg. bacteria)
(and would there be any difference if this life was intelligent)
The only thing that will prove religion wrong is time. Lots of it. Enough time for society to evolve beyond the need to explain that which they cannot comprehend with God. That won't be in any of our lifetimes.
Evolution has been proven.
citations for this?(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:
Evolution has been proven.
That's wrong. But it's a great way into this topic. It has to be wrong as it's impossible to prove scientific theories. It only works the other way: You can prove that a theory is wrong.(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:
Evolution has been proven.
That's the way science works and it's the small thing that followers of the creationism use to their advantage. They just say "Ha, that dumbass Charles Darwin has never proven that his theory about evolution was right". That's right, he couldn't do so cause he was a scientist.
On the other hand the creationists make up their own theories in a clever extensive way which makes it hard to disprove them in a scientific manner as their last argument - as in most religions - is that "God moves in mysterious ways".
Perhaps some of you know the religion of the pastafarian that says that the world was created by the great flying spaghetti monster. It's obviously made up as nobody - not even the creator Bobby Henderson - denies that it was made up. But it's not possible to disprove it. It was just created to show how the creationism stuff works.
I for one think that the work of people like Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, Thomas Hunt Morgan, Godfrey Harold Hardy/Wilhelm Weinberg, Ernst Mayr or Richard Dawkins is much more believable than the creationist's stuff.
Another thing that makes it hard to argument with them as they're always very well informed about flaws in the evolution theory and so on. The Archaeopteryx doesn't fit in perfectly as the missing link from reptiles to birds. That's what most scientists say too. But perhaps it was a relativly successfull branch relevant to the mysterious missing link. We don't know yet. But we're willing to say that we don't know it while the creationists simply claim to have the answer to everything.
I for one think it's incredible stupid to believe in this stuff. Normally I don't question someones beliefs but creationists are just nuts.
There is just one answer to the life, the universe and all the rest: 42.
But then a very old ant says that -the baker- gave him a recipe book to look after but this recipe book makes no mention of using eggs or of heating the mixture, yet the science ants check and recheck and they are sure that eggs are defiinately there and that it has deffinately been heated, however half the colony reads the recipe and says aaaaaaaa maybe when it says put it on the "win-doe sil " that is the thing that makes it really hot and makes it look like this.jsnipy wrote:
Example. Say if ants come accross a cake sitting on the counter .. some were there that night when the baker put it there .. and those ants know "the baker" made the cake.
Lets say the baker's mother dies and he has to leave immediately to go out of town... the cake remains a feeding source for the ant colony ... generations of ants come and go ....
Now the the next genertation of ant's (assuming these are science ants ) determine the cake if made of butter, eggs, flour, etc. And they discover that what makes this up underwhat tremendous heat...more so than the ants could produce. With this knowdledge the ant's don't beleive in "the baker" since they know how the cake was made.
Can't both things co-exist?
Yes, I find it amazing how many people don't actually understand the theory of evolution.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Sorry if this has been answered already.SEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
We didn't evolve from monkeys, we followed the same evolutionary path as them. Ergo..humans and monkeys both came from the same dna pool but each evolved seperately. They're like our 2nd cousins rather than us being their offspring.
....Also, humans are still evolving, just checkout the avergae height now compared with 300 years ago....
It doesn't say we evolved from monkeys.
The reason modern apes/monkeys will never become us is their thumbs are too long, they are unable to use complex tools as a result.
Although I do not think increase in height is really evolution, it's more as a result of a change in diet or other reasons, not genetic mutations to result in an advantage.
Evolution says that some individuals develop mutations, and occasionally these give them an advantage over others in the species, therefore the mutants are more likely to breed and pass their genes on. Thus over a long period the mutants become common among the species and the regular individuals die out.
There's nothing to say they develop changes on a mere act of will because, for instance a certain species decides it needs to fly to evade its predators. That makes no sense. (Just an example).
Height can be considered an evolutionary trait.rh27 wrote:
Yes, I find it amazing how many people don't actually understand the theory of evolution.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Sorry if this has been answered already.SEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
We didn't evolve from monkeys, we followed the same evolutionary path as them. Ergo..humans and monkeys both came from the same dna pool but each evolved seperately. They're like our 2nd cousins rather than us being their offspring.
....Also, humans are still evolving, just checkout the avergae height now compared with 300 years ago....
It doesn't say we evolved from monkeys.
The reason modern apes/monkeys will never become us is their thumbs are too long, they are unable to use complex tools as a result.
Although I do not think increase in height is really evolution, it's more as a result of a change in diet or other reasons, not genetic mutations to result in an advantage.
Evolution says that some individuals develop mutations, and occasionally these give them an advantage over others in the species, therefore the mutants are more likely to breed and pass their genes on. Thus over a long period the mutants become common among the species and the regular individuals die out.
There's nothing to say they develop changes on a mere act of will because, for instance a certain species decides it needs to fly to evade its predators. That makes no sense. (Just an example).
But the reason we don't see drastic changes in human evolution, at least in western culture, is no one is dying before reproducing. Cancer will never be delt with through evolution because it generally effects people after they have or would have had children. Any life experience that is gained after giving children cannot be passed on through evolution.
The idea that humans evolved from monkeys is commonly thrown around by those who seek to discredit the idea. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestory. Nothing more. Both humans and monkeys are very well suited to our environments in the modern world, that is why you don't see monkeys evolving into humans. Nothing more. If you think that the lack of newly evolved humans in the world discredits the theory of evolution, then you need to remove yourself from the scientific discussion until you are more educated on the theory you are trying to discuss.
And to an earlier post: Aspects of evolution have been proven. One species turning into another has been demonstrated in the field. A species adapting to accomodate changes in its' environment has similarly been demonstrated. What has not been proven, and most likely never will be, is the evolution of humans or any of the major species on the Earth today, because of the simple fact that all of the major events that contributed happened before recorded history.
And to an earlier post: Aspects of evolution have been proven. One species turning into another has been demonstrated in the field. A species adapting to accomodate changes in its' environment has similarly been demonstrated. What has not been proven, and most likely never will be, is the evolution of humans or any of the major species on the Earth today, because of the simple fact that all of the major events that contributed happened before recorded history.
The main reason we do not evolve is that nobody dies. Even if you are wonderman and an evolutionary miracle chances are you wont have any more kids than joe bloggs, hey you may choose not to even have any. thus your genes are lost whereas joe bloggs's carry on.
As there isnt any selection evolution is much slower, and we tend to become more vulnerable to diseases. things like asthma are on the increase. If a law was passed saying that people who have athsma or have had it in their family are not allowed to have kids, then we would evolve a resistance to it. However thats obviously has lots of moral problems. Also you could say that only people with an IQ over 120 are allowed kids, over time mankind's IQ would increase. Point being atm there is no selction as we have no predators etc, what i have mentioned would be an artificial selection.
A way in which we can show evolution is selective breeding. ever thought where all the hundreds of breeds of dog came from? and different breeds of flowers, In my eyes evolution has been proved through selective breeding, sure this is through artificial selection not natural, but the same thing would happen in the wild, instead of two dogs being bred as they have a nice temprament, in the wild they would breed as they would be healthier, stronger have more endurance biger teeth, cleverer or in some other way better suited to the environment than other dogs.
This is especially true in wolves and other animals where only the alpha males and females can breed, that means that only the best of the pack can breed, therefore all of the advantagous features of the parents are passed onto (some of) the next generation.
As there isnt any selection evolution is much slower, and we tend to become more vulnerable to diseases. things like asthma are on the increase. If a law was passed saying that people who have athsma or have had it in their family are not allowed to have kids, then we would evolve a resistance to it. However thats obviously has lots of moral problems. Also you could say that only people with an IQ over 120 are allowed kids, over time mankind's IQ would increase. Point being atm there is no selction as we have no predators etc, what i have mentioned would be an artificial selection.
A way in which we can show evolution is selective breeding. ever thought where all the hundreds of breeds of dog came from? and different breeds of flowers, In my eyes evolution has been proved through selective breeding, sure this is through artificial selection not natural, but the same thing would happen in the wild, instead of two dogs being bred as they have a nice temprament, in the wild they would breed as they would be healthier, stronger have more endurance biger teeth, cleverer or in some other way better suited to the environment than other dogs.
This is especially true in wolves and other animals where only the alpha males and females can breed, that means that only the best of the pack can breed, therefore all of the advantagous features of the parents are passed onto (some of) the next generation.
Those are actually ideas I've delved into in earlier threads as far as reqs to breed and disease and war being necessary as we have no natural predators. I'm not sure that would be evolution so much as breeding and heredity. If you only allow blondes to reproduce, and subsequently everyone is blonde, I wouldn't call that evolution.
That being said, this thread has not surprisingly turned into whether or not evolution or creationism is true rather than the original intent I had in mind. It's been a good debate none the less.
I'd be interested in any others who have thoughts on the original idea though. How do creationists rationalize dinosaurs? I think to simply say, "They just left it out" seems a bit naiive.
That being said, this thread has not surprisingly turned into whether or not evolution or creationism is true rather than the original intent I had in mind. It's been a good debate none the less.
I'd be interested in any others who have thoughts on the original idea though. How do creationists rationalize dinosaurs? I think to simply say, "They just left it out" seems a bit naiive.
I've heard them say " the dinosaurs were put on earth as a test of faith by God. If you believe in the fossil record you will go to hell because God says the Earth was created in seven days."
So your standing in front of Saint Peter. He asks; " Do you believe in Dinosars? "
" Well, yes I've seen the bones." you say.
"Off to hell with you, unbeliever."
"But, Saint Peter, I believe in God too!"
He peers over his podium, " not good enough ".
If God is so intolerant as to send you to eternal damnation for that, he can have his Heaven. ( waiting for lightening strike. )
So your standing in front of Saint Peter. He asks; " Do you believe in Dinosars? "
" Well, yes I've seen the bones." you say.
"Off to hell with you, unbeliever."
"But, Saint Peter, I believe in God too!"
He peers over his podium, " not good enough ".
If God is so intolerant as to send you to eternal damnation for that, he can have his Heaven. ( waiting for lightening strike. )
lol ... ah, good stuff.
I think they just call it evolution if it has a postive impact upon the species *shrugs* and im only fairly recent in these forums so havent seen other threads.......*sigh*
i'll just say no till u leave. no no no no no no no no no...... i give up