Area 51 Area 51 Forum Index FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Register Log in to check your private messages Log in
Refi

Bookmark this site!
Evolution
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Area 51 Forum Index -> Religion & Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which happened
we evolved
65%
 65%  [ 15 ]
God created us
30%
 30%  [ 7 ]
a higher being created us ( not necessarilly God)
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 23

Author Message
Ghengis Khan ll
Poll Master


Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 1152
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tafkao wrote:
Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 million years old) can be traced back to monkey origins. Australopithecus afarensis (3.6 million years old) can be traced forward to humans. Australopithecus anamensis (4.1 million years old) directly links the two.

There is no longer any 'missing link'. There's a direct chain of successive improvements from ape-man to cave man.

Evolution is a factually based theory, not an ism, which is a faith-based philosophy. There is no faith-based dogma or metaphysics in scientific fact.

If God is all-powerful, why are there so many increasingly less imperfect versions before modern humans (160,000 years old).


can you explain these charts




I know the second set are hard to read so if you can't make anything out just ask me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Ilovearea51
Veteran Contributer


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 366
Location: In 80 years alone in a hole.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aalpha wrote:
Boris_The_Spider wrote:
Personally i would go on the side of evolution. If there is a God how do you know that he or she didn't start off the process of evolution. Somebody may have mixed the primordal soup.


Guess what? the creation chain of events runs very parallel to the evolutionary chain of events. The biggest difference IMHO is the difference between scientific and theological symbolic ways of communicating.

As for Adam and Eve, Genesis says Cain went to another land and took a wife. No where does the Bible state that Adam and Eve were the ONLY two. If you want to get buggered about incest try to figure out how the earth was repopulated after the flood.



Well let me just say that Aadam and Eve were the first two. It may have been a hundred years before they had Cain and Able. If you look at the Geneology in Genesis chapter 5 it shows how long ever one was and when the begot cerrtain peoples. So there could be alot of kids before Cain and Able, And back then if you had sexual relations with your sister the genes wern't all messed up as today. Oh and PS God did not say what he said in Laviticus 18 at that time!

About the flood for one 8 people were on the ark along with two of every animal (they could fit, they were probably infants) and so on and so forth. I would recremend the book Genesis Records it great and give plenty of facts, not only from the bible but sintific facts to.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ghengis Khan ll
Poll Master


Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 1152
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah. Many pharoahs married there sisters and their children came out fine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ilovearea51 wrote:
aalpha wrote:
Boris_The_Spider wrote:
Personally i would go on the side of evolution. If there is a God how do you know that he or she didn't start off the process of evolution. Somebody may have mixed the primordal soup.


Guess what? the creation chain of events runs very parallel to the evolutionary chain of events. The biggest difference IMHO is the difference between scientific and theological symbolic ways of communicating.

As for Adam and Eve, Genesis says Cain went to another land and took a wife. No where does the Bible state that Adam and Eve were the ONLY two. If you want to get buggered about incest try to figure out how the earth was repopulated after the flood.



Well let me just say that Aadam and Eve were the first two. It may have been a hundred years before they had Cain and Able. If you look at the Geneology in Genesis chapter 5 it shows how long ever one was and when the begot cerrtain peoples. So there could be alot of kids before Cain and Able, And back then if you had sexual relations with your sister the genes wern't all messed up as today. Oh and PS God did not say what he said in Laviticus 18 at that time!

About the flood for one 8 people were on the ark along with two of every animal (they could fit, they were probably infants) and so on and so forth. I would recremend the book Genesis Records it great and give plenty of facts, not only from the bible but sintific facts to.


Are we in disagreement? It looks like you are saying nearly the same thing I am. I never said they were not the first two - I just said they could not have been the ONLY two if Cain went to another region to take a wife.
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
tafkao
Forum Overlord


Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3946

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ghengis,

If God is all powerful, why did he, according to your pictogram, take nine attempts co come up with this imperfect version?

Why did he take millions of years each time to find out he got it wrong the first eight times.

Only a lunatic would call our species prone to disease, war, bigotry, and sexual abuse perfect, so what happens when he realises this current version can be improved upon?

He would suddenly wipe us out, carelessly leaving fossil records of his incompetence for a ninth time and have another shot at Man 1.10. Obviously our souls would be redundant to him and not go either to heaven or hell, unless you believe the souls of all the previous 'failed attempts' were admitted as well.

Taf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what planet you live on Taf but no one from any church group has ever used the word perfect to describe humanity. Where do you critics of religion get your ideas? Watching professional wrestling?
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lamiaceae
Site Administrator
Site Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 7651
Location: To the right of my computer

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aalpha wrote:
I don't know what planet you live on Taf but no one from any church group has ever used the word perfect to describe humanity.


Of course we are not perfect aalpha, we are still evolving Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But you notice he puts the blame for the imperfection on God not being able to get it right thus putting God at the helm of evolution. There's a twist.
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Ghengis Khan ll
Poll Master


Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 1152
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taf did you read what the pictures said because if you did you would not have asked that question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
whufc88
Forum Overlord


Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 4408
Location: Calafell, Spain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

we still going on about evolution and the ark?????

ur lucky the only topic i can think of is tasteless and innappropriate, else we would still be talking about this, only ild be banned Razz
_________________
You want ants!? That's how you get Ants!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lamiaceae
Site Administrator
Site Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 7651
Location: To the right of my computer

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

my source for the below is Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

Lucy:
I think we both agree that Lucy was nothing more than an chimpanzee, we evolved from them so obviously we need a point in where we were them, for the purpose of this post, Lucy is it.

Heidelberg Man:
Here you don't argue anything, you merely state that this was built up from a jaw that many thought to be quite human.

Nebraska Man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man
Ahhh, here we tend to have differing opinions.

Quote:

It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the basis of an ape-like tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in 1917.



A geologist found it, not a palaentologist. A geologist works with geology, not matters pertaining to bones etc.

Quote:

An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amedee Forestier, who modelled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man", for the Illustrated News of London.


Now we have a drawing of it being made? - yep that's a good grounding to work off, I doubt any scientist put their rep on the line by entrusting a drawing made for some news paper.

Quote:

Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate". Many other palaentologists questioned the identification of this tooth as that of an ape.


Hmm, here we have many members of the scientific community denouncing this, I draw your attention mainly to the 'a figment of the imagination' and many palaentologists questioning it's identification.

Quote:

Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth, despite its resemblance to that of an ape, was probably that of a peccary and William Gregory, a colleague of Osborn's at the American Museum of Natural History published a retraction of H. haroldcookii in Science in 1927.


So without a palaentologist ever really saying (the scientific field who would have the best say in this matter) yep this is now to be officially believed - the claim made of this tooth came a retraction.

Quote:

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii never achieved general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted within five years of its discovery, this episode has been seized upon by the creationist movement as an example of the scientific errors which they allege undermines the credibility of palaeontology and hominid evolution.


I'll let that quote speak for itself.


I could go on (but I won't for now, as it is getting late an I have other things to do) - I did want to really put aside a lot of time tonight into this post to argue my point, argue each ape/man in your pictures, then using Jack Chick's own publications prove that Jack doesn't really research his material that well. But I shall leave that for another day.

Thanks for reading
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Ilovearea51
Veteran Contributer


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 366
Location: In 80 years alone in a hole.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tafkao wrote:
Ghengis,

If God is all powerful, why did he, according to your pictogram, take nine attempts co come up with this imperfect version?

Why did he take millions of years each time to find out he got it wrong the first eight times.

Only a lunatic would call our species prone to disease, war, bigotry, and sexual abuse perfect, so what happens when he realises this current version can be improved upon?

He would suddenly wipe us out, carelessly leaving fossil records of his incompetence for a ninth time and have another shot at Man 1.10. Obviously our souls would be redundant to him and not go either to heaven or hell, unless you believe the souls of all the previous 'failed attempts' were admitted as well.

Taf


Number 1: IF you would have looked and taken your time looking at the accutual chart then you would not have said that.

Number 2: Sounds to me like your putting God on the spot and blaim him, by saying "if God is all powerful why did he"

Number 3: God has a plan for all of us. He sometimes puts us through a ringer, kind of like an orange. you have to squeez it to get the good stuff out wich means he will put us through some hard times, but in the end we will be a better person.

Number 4: What planet are you on?!!¿





mintymetal wrote:
aalpha wrote:
I don't know what planet you live on Taf but no one from any church group has ever used the word perfect to describe humanity.


Of course we are not perfect aalpha, we are still evolving Wink


Were not still evolving, because we never evolved into humans.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tafkao
Forum Overlord


Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3946

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

God is infallible. - That's what the Christians taught me at school. If God is infallible, why would he create failures and imperfections? Thus the creations so far are not the work of God.

Radio carbon dating is a scientific fact. The gradual development from a four-legged posture to a walking posture is a scientific fact. the gradual increase in brain size and gradual increase in sophistiphication in tool use is a scientific fact. What is the ourpose of mutation and the survival of mutants over non-mutants in altered conditions, if it does not promote evolution

Finally, why would God have subjected us to all the misery our imperfections bring upon us? Is he a sadist? The Marine boot camp ethos is to break your spirit and then build you up in their image so you are totally compliant. If creating imperfection is designed to do this, why not take the less sadistic route and create compliant beings in the first place? What kind of sick game is God playing with us?

As for 'Darwinism" there is no 'ism' about it - it's a science not a philosophy. As for 'which theory of evolution' - tell me the alternatives other than evolution or creation - LeMark got disproved long ago.

Taf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
warwgn
King Speedy Gramps


Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Farmington, New Mexico USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

doesnt it also say god created man in his own image? That would mean god has a image and a form and looks like man, but which man? And in fact he has a form like man that changes alot of thinking doesnt it?
_________________
I'm faster than you!!!!!

http://wideopenracing.easyphpbb.com/index.php
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
warwgn
King Speedy Gramps


Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Farmington, New Mexico USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.



http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

click that link for the rest. Thats all i have to say about that.
_________________
I'm faster than you!!!!!

http://wideopenracing.easyphpbb.com/index.php
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Area 51 Forum Index -> Religion & Philosophy All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Effex-Media Web Resources
Design by SkaidonDesigns | Distributed by Olate
 
Create your own free forum now!
Terms of Service Purchase Ad Removal Forum Archive Report Abuse