New Find Challenges Evolution

[Baka Sama]

I recently read about this and thought it was interesting so I'd like to share. Please dont turn this into something its not. Yeah i just called you black, kettle.

Human evolution over the last two million years is often portrayed as a linear succession of three species: Homo habilis to Homo erectus to ourselves, Homo sapiens. Of these, Homo erectus is commonly seen as the first human ancestor which is like us in many respects, but with a smaller brain. The new fossils are significant because both their relative geological ages and their physical attributes directly challenge these views about our human ancestry.

One of the two fossils, an upper jaw bone of Homo habilis (KNM-ER 42703), dates from 1.44 million years ago, which is more recent than previously known fossils of that species. This late-survivor shows that Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived side by side in eastern Africa for nearly half a million years.

"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis", explains Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper. Instead, both species must have had their origins between 2 and 3 million years ago, a time from which few human fossils are known. "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition".


Full article can be found here: http://www.kfrp.com/media/index.htm

[MikeisNissan]

"Your not a fish, your a man. You walk around both legs.. homo erectus.. did i say homo? I didnt mean that! Thurgood!"

[Future240]

so i'm not the descendant of a retarded fish frog that had butt sex with a squirrel?

[MikeisNissan]

In the butt!

[TheTimanator]

Meh, The whole evolutionary therory is plauged with problems that don't seem to add up.

[Helghast]

as opposed to we coming from 1 man and 1 woman.

[SILEIGHTY_DET]

In the butt!

. . . on myspace . ha ha :p

[womenbeshoppin]

in a nuttshell = 2 homo's lived in africa for along time
So that explains AIDS

[drift freaq]

in a nuttshell = 2 homo's lived in africa for along time
So that explains AIDS

can we say in poor taste? Plus actual real misunderstanding of AID's in Africa? Which is pretty much spread amongst the heterosexual population not homosexual.

[Agamemnon]

This report doesnt really challenge the theory of evolution, but rather offers another view on its principles.

[ManoNegra]

Doesn't debunk the theory of evolution imo - it's not just about humans but applies to all living organisms after all. Says to me me that there is more to our ancestry than previously believed.

[WanganRunner]

This challenges nothing, it merely means that there was another offshoot sub-species that eventually disappeared, just like the Neanderthals, which co-existed with other humans and then just died off.

Saying something did or did not happen due to the presence of a carbon date on a single sample is retarded. Aren't the creationists always shooting holes in the credibility of carbon dating anyway?

The bottom line is, on the whole, across all species and time periods, there exists an ENORMOUS and INARGUABLE body of evidence that species do indeed evolve over time from other species.

Whether or not we have found and properly dated the specific samples that say whether WE did or not is irrelevant. Animals evolve, humans are animals that walk and talk and drive cars.

So yes, your great grand-o-saurus had ass-sex with a squirrel, a fish-monkey, a mastadon, and quite possibly Wilt Chamberlain.

[just1pepsi]

wilt the stilt laid alot of pipe.

[IStop4NoMan]

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1196920462416.jpg

sorry, just had to

[powersteeringless180sx]

yea really it doesn't disprove anything about evolution. It just means there's more to us then meets the eye...

[eastcoastS14]

this find in no way challanges evolution


god obviously burried dinosaur bones to test our faith...duh

[just1pepsi]

lol.
No, satan buried them. If you believe dinosaurs existed you are going to Hell.

[eli_eli]

this in no way challenges evolution, it actually supports it

[MikeisNissan]

Wwwwhhhat?!?!?!

[Baka Sama]

Take it as you will. But I thought the whole article was an good read. I never said the article disproves evolution, i said it challenges it. Challenges it in the fact that what was commonly believed in evolution was just proved wrong by the very scientist that try to prove evolution right. Yet they teach it in school to little kids as though its fact. I believe in dinosaurs. I believe in God. You can believe in whatever you want to.

[JeremyR]

survival of the fittest son!

[womenbeshoppin]

can we say in poor taste?
didn't mean to offend your sexuality, srry :love:

[a_ahmed]

Evolution is rubbish on so many levels. Charles Darwin himself stated that his theory would plummet if there was any proof of complex organisms. He used his naked eye to observe things. Eg; there was no electron microscopes and microbiology at his time, no one knew a cell had a whole factory within itself doing ever so many things... they used to think those were lil blobs haha.

In the end it's either you believe in God or you believe in chance/accidence/coincidence/evolution happening for millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of years aka can never REALLY prove evolution, you just have to believe in it. Giving examples of 'possibilities' through some meager examples still doesn't prove evolution hence evolution 'theory'.

I believe in order, purpose, connections, functions, schedule, things of this nature. If you take the theory of probability, the theory of evolution becomes even more meager in itself.

This is an endless debate that will spur many arguments on both sides, those who believe in God/a creator and those who believe in evolution/chance/coincidence/etc...

The very fact that we speak, reason, think, discuss to me is a disprovable of evolution. That we ponder, that we have a conscious existence, intellect, reason.

Why do I say that? Because apparently someone observed with their less than intelligent mind that we would have 'evolved' (anthromorphism art) through thousands of years then eventually because no evidence was found millions of years from one thing to another and that the earliest was a 'cell' of some sort, without actually knowing the cell itself has its own complexities, further going that the cell which has ever so many vital functions SOMEHOW came about by itself from accidental and coincidental chemical processes.

Just look at the human body the organs, the lungs, the brain, the heart, the kidney, the eyes, the sexual reproductive organs, the muscle groups, the vessels, the nerves, the skeletal system, the list goes on. We are a perfect machine.

I remember once mentioning to some evolutionist how the eyes (typical example) are a proof of how evolution fails, the very fact that our body is SYMMETRICALLY MIRRORED, further more to the example of the eyes, that we see three dimensionally what are the odds of that. We are born with good eyesight, otherwise imagine being cross eyed even. He instead showed me some 'famous evolutionist' proposing the 'proof' of how the eye formed. So I watched it... it was 'revolutionary'... I honestly was like....w....t....h... all the guy had was a series of anthropomorphic DRAWINGS... I said this is your great proof? What a sad sad joke... Who is deceiving who...

Then most importantly the sexual reproductive system a male and a female, the way we reproduce. How would this happen? What were we asexual? Then all of a sudden we developed perfectly functioning sexual organs? Again... it's all a grand deception and illusion, people have intellect and reason to see beyond it but chose not to as they chose to disbelieve in God and think they are self-sufficient in every which way just because we have more tools and technology. But doesn't every generation think this way? Even 1000s+ years ago those at the time that disbelieved in God used to really think they were top, modern, advanced, but we think of them as savages often times, uncivilized etc...

In the end today people still believe or disbelieve in God. Just that those who disbelieve in God have another deception/explanation for themselves and others as to why they don't believe in God. All that changes are the means.

Look at how great we humans are, one storm, one earthquake in a few seconds and all the great technology and human pride is reduced to meagerness and desire for mercy. All the great technology and power is rendered powerless and useless and we are just flesh bound weak creatures.

[Quail]

so i'm not the descendant of a retarded fish frog that had butt sex with a squirrel?

One of my favourite episodes! Good quote :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/drewshack/South%20Park/1012_teaching_evolution.jpg

[eastcoastS14]

Take it as you will. But I thought the whole article was an good read. I never said the article disproves evolution, i said it challenges it. Challenges it in the fact that what was commonly believed in evolution was just proved wrong by the very scientist that try to prove evolution right. Yet they teach it in school to little kids as though its fact. I believe in dinosaurs. I believe in God. You can believe in whatever you want to.

yeah welcome to education....text books and classes are constantly changing as more information is discovered, have you ever opened a text book from the 1950s or 60s? lots of different info than what is our books now, especially in the field of science....and last time I checked schools teach the "theory of evolution" I was never once told that it was absolute fact ever....so whats the alternative? Dont teach it for the next thousand years until all the facts are in? Or do it like kentucky and print a disclaimer on it that says that its still a theory (idk if they actually do that, no offense kentucky)

[drftmark]

Evolution has so many holes in its theory its not even funny.

Heres just one example of many about spontaneous generation. Read "the odds" excerpt.

http://www.truenews.org/creation/origin.html

Pretty much disproves spontaneous generation with math/science.

I forgot to add that I think some of you are confusing micro-evolution, with macro-evolution.

[kingkilburn]

a_ahmed, if you study a little biology and have a little understanding of cosmology you will find that most of what you have said is wrong. The only thing missing from the evolutionary theory is our own missing link.

There is science that proves how cells came to be so complex. Look at complex amoebas and algae. They have different parts off their body that do very different things. Amoebas in particular have "organs" that operate very much like a single bacteria. Science is learning how life came to be but there are holes, holes that are constantly being filled in by new knowledge.

How on earth does our body's symmetry disprove evolution? You have to explain that. And we have binocular vision because our eyes face forward, that is no wonder of science it just proves that our ancestors at one point found it beneficial to have depth perception. The only strange thing I see about our eyes is that for their size we tend to have poor vision compared to animals with the same sized eyes. It sounds to me like you take your own lack of knowledge ans say that god must have just made it that way rather than putting thought into it.





Yes I believe in god.
Yes I believe in evolution.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Is it just a coincidence that the order of events in the Genesis creation are right, I think not. Does that mean god, satan or who ever buried dinosaurs to test our faith? HELL NO. It would have been easier to just poof them into existence and let them die.

The only major thing I think science has yet to explain(and possibly never will) is the original spark of life that took chemical reactions and gave them life. There is God. God said let there be life and set into motion the creation of man.


EDIT
Astronomical odds does not mean impossible. Lightning does strike twice. The odds that there would be any life on earth let alone intelligent life are astronomical in their own right. Science acknowledges and accept this. Just having a planet with the general makeup of ours is incredible, life or no. Odds plays no role in the proof or disproof of what has already happened. Period.

[eastcoastS14]

Evolution is rubbish on so many levels. Charles Darwin himself stated that his theory would plummet if there was any proof of complex organisms. He used his naked eye to observe things. Eg; there was no electron microscopes and microbiology at his time, no one knew a cell had a whole factory within itself doing ever so many things... they used to think those were lil blobs haha.

In the end it's either you believe in God or you believe in chance/accidence/coincidence/evolution happening for millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of years aka can never REALLY prove evolution, you just have to believe in it. Giving examples of 'possibilities' through some meager examples still doesn't prove evolution hence evolution 'theory'.

I believe in order, purpose, connections, functions, schedule, things of this nature. If you take the theory of probability, the theory of evolution becomes even more meager in itself.

This is an endless debate that will spur many arguments on both sides, those who believe in God/a creator and those who believe in evolution/chance/coincidence/etc...

The very fact that we speak, reason, think, discuss to me is a disprovable of evolution. That we ponder, that we have a conscious existence, intellect, reason.

Why do I say that? Because apparently someone observed with their less than intelligent mind that we would have 'evolved' (anthromorphism art) through thousands of years then eventually because no evidence was found millions of years from one thing to another and that the earliest was a 'cell' of some sort, without actually knowing the cell itself has its own complexities, further going that the cell which has ever so many vital functions SOMEHOW came about by itself from accidental and coincidental chemical processes.

Just look at the human body the organs, the lungs, the brain, the heart, the kidney, the eyes, the sexual reproductive organs, the muscle groups, the vessels, the nerves, the skeletal system, the list goes on. We are a perfect machine.

I remember once mentioning to some evolutionist how the eyes (typical example) are a proof of how evolution fails, the very fact that our body is SYMMETRICALLY MIRRORED, further more to the example of the eyes, that we see three dimensionally what are the odds of that. We are born with good eyesight, otherwise imagine being cross eyed even. He instead showed me some 'famous evolutionist' proposing the 'proof' of how the eye formed. So I watched it... it was 'revolutionary'... I honestly was like....w....t....h... all the guy had was a series of anthropomorphic DRAWINGS... I said this is your great proof? What a sad sad joke... Who is deceiving who...

Then most importantly the sexual reproductive system a male and a female, the way we reproduce. How would this happen? What were we asexual? Then all of a sudden we developed perfectly functioning sexual organs? Again... it's all a grand deception and illusion, people have intellect and reason to see beyond it but chose not to as they chose to disbelieve in God and think they are self-sufficient in every which way just because we have more tools and technology. But doesn't every generation think this way? Even 1000s+ years ago those at the time that disbelieved in God used to really think they were top, modern, advanced, but we think of them as savages often times, uncivilized etc...

In the end today people still believe or disbelieve in God. Just that those who disbelieve in God have another deception/explanation for themselves and others as to why they don't believe in God. All that changes are the means.

Look at how great we humans are, one storm, one earthquake in a few seconds and all the great technology and human pride is reduced to meagerness and desire for mercy. All the great technology and power is rendered powerless and useless and we are just flesh bound weak creatures.

Just took the time to read this.....and your argument really isnt much of one at all. If you believe and god thats cool, I would never try to disprove that, I just take the stand that I have no clue if there is or not....I hope there is...I really do, but im not positive.

That being said the problem with your argument is one that a lot of creationists have and a lot of people in general do...and that is the concept of time. We as humans which only live for about 100 years give or take, have no concept of real time....that is to say time on a grand scale in which things like planets and galaxies and species can form. Given the amount of time that this planet has been in existence evolution becomes more and more likely and less and less suprising...still amazing none the less. However the concept of millions or billions of years is completely unfathomable to the human mind...we have nothing to comparable size, think about how long the last 10years of your life seemed now imagine if that was 100 times longer and that is only 1000 years...which brings you back to 1000AD, now Imagine that time being 1000times longer than that and thats only 1,000,000 years ago...so the fact that something existed 65million years ago is an inconcievable amount of time..thats enough time for the tectonic plates to shift and mountains to be created and oceans to form....go stand in the bottom of the grand canyon and realise that it used to be under water and think about how much time that would take...thats the kind of time we are talking, completely unimaginable.

So given this huge expanse of time species continue to grow and adapt, charles darwin didnt prove evolution...but he did observe specialization within species, birds of the same species with different shaped beaks specialized for the types of flowers they ate....given certain conditions for millions of years a species will adapt through survival of the fittest...a giraffe with a short neck will not be able to eat off of tall trees so it will die and its genes wont be passed on, once again no one is arguing that one week an organism swam in the water and then the next week it started sprouting legs....this is over an incredible amount of time that certain physical features and such began to develop. You point out our eyes and organs etc....but remember that these things obviously arent specific to humans, if anything I would imagine that the fact that most organisms on this planet share somewhat of a similar anatomy as far as mammals compared to other mammals or lizards to lizards would suggest a common ancestor.

Another problem I believe creationists have, is they just dont give nature enough credit...they see human thought and think that there is no way that anything less than some supreme being could have created us. But once again the power of nature and evolution is unimaginable to us so we refuse to believe that our intelligence could come out of evolution especially since we seemingly surrounded by creatures that cant speak or dont appear to reason as intelligently as we do. Once again this seems incredibly amazing and unlikely until you think about the scale of things and realize that the probablility of at least one very intelligent species out of billions in existence seems more likely given all the variables, but more over that given the fact that their are as many stars in the universe as there are grains of sand on all the worlds beaches and many with planets the fact that somewhere in something that big there is at least one planet that had the right variables to sustain life and on that world there are semi intelligent creatures like ourselves...the possibility of that becomes less hard to believe. Once again we think too highly of ourselves and believe that we are so great that god made us in his own image, I think its the other way around, that in ancient times to explain the unexplainable man made god and made him in his own image. Evolution still remains a theory because it is not 100% accurate yet as this story shows, however its a pretty good one as far as theorys go, I can take you to a museum or to an anthropologist and show you physical evidence that you can observe and hold....show you skulls from the same species over time and how they changed or show you the DNA of dinosaurs and modern birds and show you how similar they are and I can show you rocks and fossils from millions of years ago, yet if I ask you for physical evidence of god what would you show me? I hate to say it but I think god is more of a theory than evolution but hey Id love for someone to prove me wrong, Id worry about death a lot less

[a_ahmed]

kingkilburn (http://www.zilvia.net/f/member.php?u=47745) -

it just proves that our ancestors at one point found it beneficial to have depth perception.That is ridiculous. I find it beneficial to fly, why can't I decide to grow some wings.

It's like every other argument, followed by "you don't REALLY understand evolution".

I never mentioned the bible by the way. I am a muslim. I believe the Bible is not the complete word of God. It is a mixture of human words, God's words, prophet's words, historian's words, church's words, etc... a mixture of things.

Muslims don't deny dinosaurs or other creation. The only reason hardcore Christians/evangelicals who believe in the Creation as opposed to Evolution deny it is because they take the whole bible for the word of God which it is unfortunately not. The word bible in itself is not found in the bible. It is a latin word for book from biblios.

You can deceive yourself into believing in God and evolution but that's a sort of Deism. As that therefore puts God out of the picture. God is the creator and maintainer in Muslims' view and well technically in Christian view so you are viewing it from a Deism perspective of sorts.

Back on topic. "My lack of knowledge" is a typical refutal of every evolutionist. If you don't accept evolution you automatically don't understand evolution. Just like as a convert to Islam, I apparently don't understand Christianity anymore, while in fact I studied christianity, went to christian schools, have protestant, catholic and orthodox/coptic christian background as well.

Furthermore the assumption that I know nothing about chemistry and biology is just another defensive response to rejection of evolution. I have been thought about evolution from elementary school up to college/university... not once was 'creationism' thought in school, aside from religion and philosophy classes -- but that was an open house, believe what you want.

Furthermore a friend of mine has a PhD in biochemistry, he does not believe in evolution. How is that possible despite all the brainwashing of universities and the work he does? Does he also suddenly not have knowledge of biology or chemistry?

Science is merely a TOOL, not THE truth. The purpose of science is to ascertain to the truth but it is not always the truth.

For example, earth being flat, the earth being center of the universe, spontaneous generation, A HUMAN BEING FULLY FORMED IN THE SPERM, all of these things were once considered SCIENCE. Just for your information western science believed in a human being fully formed in the sperm in the last what was it 200 or 100 years....

Likewise just because charles darwin was a popular alternative, did not mean suddenly it is absolute truth. Otherwise if it was, it wouldn't be a theory it would be a fact of life.

The reason it persists is because of it being an 'alternate belief'. Due to the attack on religion in general (be it whatever it may be) it has flourished as a popular teaching in schools and the idea of teaching 'creation' or that God created in schools became foul and sacrilege to the secular or should I say atheist system.

---

eastcoastS14 (http://www.zilvia.net/f/member.php?u=50960) - The thing that's eternal is the absolute truth. Falsehood always perishes. In time truth always replaces falsehood, and human history is a witness to that. There are some beliefs that come and go but some remain. Whether we live a thousand years or a hundred years, what we see in our lives or do not see, the truth itself is independent of our own mistakes.

However, us not being able to live millions of years and evolution theory taking 'millions' of years to take place, with very meager 'evidence' to even describe it, is nothing but a tactic in order not to ever be able to disprove that which can not be proven. An irony since that is the ad hominem thrown at people who believe in God.

All Charles Darwin did was with no real knowledge of even his limited science of his time (eg; no microbiology) was observe with his naked eye creatures. Utilizing imagination and creativity came up with vivid explanations and descriptions of anthropomorphism and speculation.

[yudalicious]

the article's title states new finding challenges established views on evolution, the thread's title states new finding challenges evolution, very different things imo.

I find it funny that a_ahmed's post TRIES to use logical reasoning and scientific method to debunk evolution, but fails miserably in the process, showing a complete lack of understanding of science and physiology, not to mention a lack of ability to argue without logical fallacies. If there are a few incongruencies in the evidence in support of evolution, then that MUST mean the Bible is right, right guys? Go logical reasoning!

[yudalicious]

Just took the time to read this.....and your argument really isnt much of one at all.

Exactly my thought as well. He wrote a ton, yet failed to really deliver ANY viable evidence.

[yudalicious]

kingkilburn (http://www.zilvia.net/f/member.php?u=47745) -

That is ridiculous. I find it beneficial to fly, why can't I decide to grow some wings.

Why don't you ask God?


However, us not being able to live millions of years and evolution theory taking 'millions' of years to take place, with very meager 'evidence' to even describe it, is nothing but a tactic in order not to ever be able to disprove that which can not be proven.
So, please give us direct evidence FOR creationism, instead of attacking certain shortcomings of the evolution theory and using THAT as proof for creationism.


An irony since that is the ad hominem thrown at people who believe in God.
What? Have you read what you wrote? Your original post was full of ad hominems aimed at people who had different views from you. Yes I know what irony is, do you?

[a_ahmed]

I did not mention the bible once, I am not even a Christian or believe in Christianity. Christian creationists, their goal is just to prove the bible, not understand life or what's around them. This is not what I ascertain to. I am a Muslim, I believe in one God, one creator, one sustainer and maintainer, while we are put in this universe to be tested in this very limited life. Given the freedom to do whatever we want, warned only of the consequences.

All evolutionists know are adhominem and "BUT you don't understand it" responses.

And when you run out of ideas you start just the adhominem barrage. "why don't you ask God" and other such jokes lol.

Evolution downplays to the weaker human mind that believes in only what it sees with the naked senses. Hence how easily anthropomorphism could even convince the uneducated.

In the end either you believe God is the creator, the sustainer, the maintainer, while giving us choice in our lives. Or you give yourself up to believing in coincidence, chance, etc...

The real shortcoming is the fact that evolution theory is portrayed as a fact, as the truth, as real life.

Until you can fully prove it, with absolute evidence left and right it is just a belief. Henceforth, you can not really attack 'creation' or creationism or believing in God, because it too is a belief.

How you come to the conclucion of either is through logical reasoning but one or the other has more weight through philosophical debate. And it is through debate that one person comes to one conclusion and another to another.

[yudalicious]

All evolutionists know are adhominem and "BUT you don't understand it" responses.
Ad hominem.


And when you run out of ideas you start just the adhominem barrage. "why don't you ask God" lol.

Ad hominem.


Evolution downplays to the weaker human mind that believes in only what it sees with the naked senses. Hence how easily anthropomorphism could even convince the uneducated.

Ad hominem.

Irony?



The real shortcoming is the fact that evolution theory is portrayed as a fact, as the truth, as real life.
I never say it is fact. It is the best evidence for our existence that we have, I choose to believe it based on MY evaluation with MY set of standards. I never imposed my beliefs on you; sadly you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and go as far as calling someone who believes evolution as weak minded and uneducated. (which, btw, is just one of the many ad hominems in your posts).


Until you can fully prove it, with absolute evidence left and right it is just a belief. Henceforth, you can not really attack 'creation' or creationism or believing in God, because it too is a belief.
I didn't attack your beliefs. I merely attacked your arguments against evolution, because they were illogical and showed that you had little to no understanding of what you were talking about. And this is coming from someone who likes logic and method, not as someone who believes in evolution.

[eastcoastS14]

please point out this "meager evidence" you speak of? there is...and I think this is the scientific term "an ass load of evidence" supporting evolution but like I said even if its 99.9% proven its still called a theory

it seems like you believe that scientists who study evolution are a bunch of dudes standing around going "well we dont really know.....anything....about this...but here's a theory that sounds good" which is in fact just the opposite...more and more information continues to surface and with advancements in the science of DNA we are learning more than ever. Yet the creationist argument never changes...the funny thing about god is that you never have to prove he/she exists to anyone, cause you believe...the theory of a god still remains today because there is no possible way to disprove a creator of all things to anyone...I say oh well look at science, creationist says oh well science is just a conspiracy theory against god by people who dont believe, creationists attack that which has supporting evidence but dont cite any evidence for what they believe at all....in fact if any thing they cite evidence that is shown by science to be related to a natural phenomenon and rather than accept it they try and disprove science itself.....so please one more time for the sake of argument, please point out some physical evidence ( that cannot be disproved by science) of god....Ill wait

[a_ahmed]

Note how what you quoted was in fact a pointing to the fact of your ad hominem.

My explanations are not illogical, you just have no responses to them and it shows that you have nothing BUT ad hominem "you have little to no understanding of what you are talking about".

I could have just as easily said "You know what man, you're an idiot, you have no idea what you're talking about". But that's very low and ad hominem.. and that's what you basically did.

eastcoasts14. The evidence? It is meager, because if it was astronomically true, eternally true, without having to conjure up a statement like "it happens after millions of years" it would be all around us and daily likewise with absolute linked evidences able to be dug out left and right.

What is it? Just a belief, and alternate belief option.

Likewise Charles Darwin he was not even a medical doctor, he was an observer, he was not a real scientist nor was there microbiology in his time... yet he is in the secular media portrayed as this "great scientist of human history", that is nothing but ulterior motive and an agenda to defend certain ideology rather than ascertain to the truth. Once the British utilized 'science' to show themselves as the superior race and black people/other indigenous people as savages. Remember the African slave who was shown in Britain at display as "proof of evolution"?

Science is just a tool. You can not say that I have no understanding of science, or that I have no understand of 'insert anything' just because I do not believe in it. Hence my example of my friend who works in frickin research labs and has a PhD in microbiology YET does not believe in evolution. Science is JUST a tool. Evolutionists are trying to use science to prove their belief. I can use science to PROVE MY BELIEF. That God is the creator.

I can understand how everything works and functions around me AND YET still believe in God and not evolution. How is that possible? Because Science is merely a tool.

[yudalicious]

I could have just as easily said "You know what man, you're an idiot, you have no idea what you're talking about". But that's very low and ad hominem..

I believe you did earlier...


Evolution downplays to the weaker human mind that believes in only what it sees with the naked senses. Hence how easily anthropomorphism could even convince the uneducated.


Low? Yes, very. Ad hominem? Also yes.

[a_ahmed]

That is in the same post after me quoting your ad hominem. Regardless, it is. Why is it not?

If you only believe what you are told and what you see with your naked senses you can be fooled into anything.

With media you can persuade anyone to believe anything if they are only a person who solely relies on their naked senses and not their intellect, rational or logic.

Artists learn anthropomorphism not science students.

[eastcoastS14]

eastcoasts14. The evidence? It is meager, because if it was astronomically true, eternally true, without having to conjure up a statement like "it happens after millions of years" it would be all around us and daily likewise with absolute linked evidences able to be dug out left and right.


This is probably the worst argument against evolution evar! and people continue to make it.....not after millions of years....over millions of years! what that means is that you wont see some fish giving birth suddenly to a thing with legs, evolution is incredibly subtle while its happening around you, noticing evolution would be like noticing the errosion of a mountain range...do you think you would have noticed the forming of the sahara? or of the himilayas if you were where they now stand for at some 100year or even 1000year interval...probably not, it would look like the same dirt, but 100,000,000 guess what, mountains and deserts. remember darwin was born in 1809 so humans havent even been looking for evolution much before that, and we havent even existed as a speceies on this planet long enough to chronical the evolution of anything else...and if evolution doesnt exist how come there arent new species just appearing out of dirt still?


I can use science to PROVE MY BELIEF. That God is the creator.


and for the love of god will you please do this already? Ive asked you to for like the last 5 posts and you still havent! so seriously....prove it

[yudalicious]

If you only believe what you are told and what you see with your naked senses you can be fooled into anything.

With media you can persuade anyone to believe anything if they are only a person who solely relies on their naked senses and not their intellect, rational or logic.


Wait a minute... this sounds like an argument for evolution!

OR could it be that, just like this post, your others posts have offered little to nothing of substance in support of your arguments. Like I said, I don't feel the need to defend evolution or to attack creationism, I just wanted to point out that your arguments so far have been pretty lacking in substance and delivery.

[a_ahmed]

First. Actually you are wrong Charles Darwin was not the first or last to propose the idea of evolution. But most Darwin fans don't even know that. It was not well received however.

Secondly. Making an argument that something happens over or after millions of years doesn't change the fact it is unprovable because it can apparently happen even while humans never even existed. There would have been at least one or two records in history where a fish gave birth to a chicken or something (ad hominem maybe, but no really). Just as we today still have monkies and apparently we come from 'primates'. Guess they were 'too strong'.

You don't see humans going around fucking monkies and monkies giving births to hybrids. They are NOT our species. They are monkies. We did not come FROM monkies, monkies are monkies, humans are humans. Just as different dog species can interbreed but they are dogs and they will not grow extra wings or whatever by having sex with birds.

We do not come from 'primates' either. We come from our male and female HUMAN ancestors.

Or even forge the fish. Lets talk about the chicken. What came first the chicken or the egg argument. This is not a problem for Muslims or those who believe in God. Only for those who believe in evolution..

How about a pre-'chicken' creature. It did not have chicken legs, or wings or eyes or beak or anything, but over millions of years developed it? It just doesn't make sense even. You either have a chicken or no chicken. You either have a male man with a dick, with eyes, with a tongue, mouth, ears, etc.. or you don't.

Mutations destroy genetic code. That is why people become handicapped, damaged, diseased, etc... they don't add magical wings that make you fly, they only make you screwed up.

You don't get super powers by being bitten by a spider. The media is a perfect example how you can make something ubelivable believable. With the advent of ultra realism with computer animation you can make the most unreal seem real by analogical association (eg; a super hero human with wings, he flies, he moves, he walks, he talks, but in real life there is no such thing but due to human memory and analogical association it LOOKS real, FEELS real, SEEMS real, but it is not).

[drift freaq]

Ok I tried to stay out of this but it pulled me in..
First off the Articles presumption that because homo erectus and homo hablis existed side by side thereby challenging evolution is ludicrous at best.
Its a proven fact that the Homonid tree we came from has many branchs.
Does evolution exist? Of course it does its been proven in thousands of species scientifically. Does evolution rule out the existence of a superior being that created all aka God? No.
I have stated this before and I will say it again some of the most brilliant Scientists of our times have stated a belief in more than meets the eye.
A_ahmed to say that the existence of God is a explanation for there being no evolution is a Scientific fail. Science has already proven that Evolution of species exists. Evolution of the Universe exists. Evolution itself exists. The only thing they have not figured out is the complete lineage of the family tree that man has come from. Did we evolve from something? Yes. Not to challange your faith, but the question that even great Physicists I personally know that are indeed faithful believers in God ask at what moment did God have a hand. I.E. At what moment did our souls come to exist differentiating us from other species lower down the evolutionary chain?
To just through out the Evolution for the sake of the fact that you have a belief in God is just throwing out the baby with the bath water. Its a breakdown of intelligent reasoning and borders on religious fanaticism, be it right wing Christian, Muslim, whatever!
Stop this useless arguement because at the end of the day there is room in the intelligent world for a combination of theories to exist.
To not agree to the Scientific proof before our eyes based solely on a religious belief is not using your intellectual capacities properly at best at worst its Religious fanaticism in my opinion.

[eastcoastS14]

First. Actually you are wrong Charles Darwin was not the first or last to propose the idea of evolution. But most Darwin fans don't even know that. It was not well received however.

Secondly. Making an argument that something happens over or after millions of years doesn't change the fact it is unprovable because it can apparently happen even while humans never even existed. There would have been at least one or two records in history where a fish gave birth to a chicken or something (ad hominem maybe, but no really). Just as we today still have monkies and apparently we come from 'primates'. Guess they were 'too strong'.

You don't see humans going around fucking monkies and monkies giving births to hybrids. They are NOT our species. They are monkies. We did not come FROM monkies, monkies are monkies, humans are humans. Just as different dog species can interbreed but they are dogs and they will not grow extra wings or whatever by having sex with birds.

We do not come from 'primates' either. We come from our male and female HUMAN ancestors.

Or even forge the fish. Lets talk about the chicken. What came first the chicken or the egg argument. This is not a problem for Muslims or those who believe in God. Only for those who believe in evolution..

How about a pre-'chicken' creature. It did not have chicken legs, or wings or eyes or beak or anything, but over millions of years developed it? It just doesn't make sense even. You either have a chicken or no chicken. You either have a male man with a dick, with eyes, with a tongue, mouth, ears, etc.. or you don't.

Mutations destroy genetic code. That is why people become handicapped, damaged, diseased, etc... they don't add magical wings that make you fly, they only make you screwed up.

You don't get super powers by being bitten by a spider. The media is a perfect example how you can make something ubelivable believable. With the advent of ultra realism with computer animation you can make the most unreal seem real by analogical association (eg; a super hero human with wings, he flies, he moves, he walks, he talks, but in real life there is no such thing but due to human memory and analogical association it LOOKS real, FEELS real, SEEMS real, but it is not).

^^ noooooooooo ahhhhh for the love of god....evolution occurs over time, so you would never......ever EVAR have something born from a species with as drastic changes as you are talking about...we didnt come from monkies, I dont think anyone is making that argument anymore, we are descendents of primative mammals just like monkies are descendents of primative monkies...differennt species and no one is arguing otherwise

can I prove that the worlds continents were once one landmass?? by your argument no because it was before humans. yet we can work towards that conclusion based on evidence of things we see today

[a_ahmed]

First of all I agree with you on one thing drift freaq.

As an argument that, "God exists = no evolution = true" is a 'scientic' fail on the surface, however it goes deeper than that. It is more of an argument of order vs disorder. Function vs lack of purpose/accident/coincidence. That is the actual debate when you go much deeper.

It's either God created AND maintained or God created and let loose chaos or God did not create and it was always chaos.


Secondly you are talking as if evolution was proven and evidence is all around us confidently, as if I'm some 'cave man' (lol no joke intended) who is not aware and is in the medieval ages or something. Sorry to say but having been brainwashed from elementary school to college/uni with evolution theory, darwinism, etc... I still don't buy into it.

All the evidences were always overturned and replaced with other evidences, it's constant. It's like a struggle to prove evolution, hence my example of the african man brought by the british to Britain as 'proof', while he was caged on display. In otherwords to me evidence is something that is inconclusively, undeniable, eternally, absolutely true, and that is not the case, that is why it is 'evolution theory'.

In other words it's not truth, but rather one possibility, one excuse, one explanation replacing another by another by another by another. That is why it remains called 'evolution theory'.

I have a french encylopedia with me from 15 years ago, which talks about evolution theory, darwin, origin of species, etc... and guess what, if I posted that, you would be like "oh no that's out of date" LOL

Absolute truth is eternal and that is what we should all be trying to ascertain to. Something that is only true for a period of time was never the truth to begin with

Eastcoast - lol, hence what I said, you basically setup a principle rule that it can never truly be proven but has to be believed because it does not happen around us, it must therefore happen over millions of millions of years which you can not truly observe, and thus, it is a fallible argument and merely mirrors darwin's principles. He was a naked eye observer, not a person understanding how the cell works in his time. Likewise today the arguments are more advanced but the principles are the same.

In other words, he ascertained that all creatures evolved somehow but he was not sure how. He tried to explain some possibilities in this belief by anthropomorphisms and naked observations.

I watched a couple of months ago a documentary on Discovery. I LOVE discovery channel... they talked about evolution and Charles Darwin... Long story short, what made me so ridiculously upset was how they showed different creatures and 'showed' how they 'must have' evolved. Example giraffe like creatures and why and how they developed their long necks over long periods of time while struggling for food.. like cmon. If I extend my neck sooo hard for long periods of time and my children extend their necks sooo hard, I'm not going to develop giraffe powers... I am just being down to earth here, this is not how life works, this is not how earth, or universe order works. There is no such thing as evolution of one creature to another, disproving the fact that we came from primates or some other creatures and those primates came from some other creatures and land creatures came from water creatures, etc... We come from human ancestors period.

Like I said Muslims or other people who believe in God have no problem with the chicken and the egg argument. What came first the chicken or the egg? This kind of problem only exists for evolutionists and it's suppose to be a joke on people who believe in God... but honestly it's easy to answer.

[eastcoastS14]

ok Im out of this argument.....the fact that you refer to schools teaching you evolution as brainwashing just lets me know the type of person Im arguing with

you seem to want to group things into god did this or god did that but it doesnt work like that

I try to leave criticizing peoples faith out of these arguments but enough already the fact is is that you have absolutely no physical evidence or any type of proof whatsoever of a god in any shape or form that cannot be disproven by science

I find it completely ridiculous that a creationist can refuse a theory in a text book that has physical evidence to support it, yet whole heartedly accept the writings or the teachings of a religious text that gives absolutely no supporting evidence....you forget that the people who wrote the bible, the torah, the koran etc...were just that. PEOPLE! its just some dude writing a book, and if know one ever taught you the concept of god you would have no concept of it at all....no one has ever seen or talked to god ever, so the stories and scriptures are all man made...the people who write these things arent any different than you or I, yet people take it as the truth without needing any evidence...thanks but ill follow the path with some form of proof and in the meantime hope that im wrong...religion vs. science isnt going to be resolved on zilvia but next time bring some evidence to the table

that being said im out of this

[a_ahmed]

Physical evidence? I'm sorry but like I said if I can't see creatures 'evolving' from one creature into a completely different one. Or one creature developing completely new features (eg; growing new wings, me getting ultra violent vision, ultra sound hearing, etc...) I can't buy into it as 'evidence'. Simple as that. Evidence is suppose to be physical like you yourself said.

Finding random bones and creature pretty anthropomorphic pictures is not evidence.

And in regards to what you said about religions, God, etc... that's a whole other argument.

What you fail to see is that evolution should be classified not as science but rather as a belief as well. It is just a way to prove not how things work in nature but rather to prove that God is not necessary and that out of chaos magical things happen that somehow turn into order.

[eastcoastS14]

they are animals not superheros

[a_ahmed]

And animals = animals

Superheroes = fake despite feeling, appearing, seeming real due to ultra realistic art (eg; computer animation)

Likewise chicken = chicken, dog = dog, human = human, monkey = monkey.

Likewise male human = male human and female human = female human.

Welcome to reality. We come from our human ancestors and not other creatures through evolution.

Like I said evolution theory works because it is an easy to sell to those who want an alternate view and belief in life. I am not saying religion (name any) is not a set of beliefs, it is, but what I'm trying to deduce is the fact that evolution is not the absolute truth as it is made out to be. It is just that, an alternate belief and I do not believe in it, because I believe in order not chaos.

[eastcoastS14]

where did the first human come from?

[a_ahmed]

God created the first humans. We are all brothers and sisters in humanity with a common source.

Now you may say, how can you prove that. It's a belief, I'm not denying that. But to me this is a far more logical belief than us coming randomly out of no where or randomly out of some other creatures (which came from what and who again, etc...? endless paradox).

As the Christian brethren would say "there had to be an intial mover". St. Thomas Aquinas 'proofs of God' through logic and reasoning were actually yoinked from Muslim philosophers lol. Just thought I'd state that, but his writings in this regards are kind of neat too although limited.

[eastcoastS14]

mmm yeah us being zapped down in a lightning bolt like the terminator is way more believable.......

god zaps down one man and one women, they bang and have kids...there kids bang and have kids etc etc etc until there are billions of us, so the human race is all one giant incestial family? cool, now explain to me if there was only one man and one woman why there are black, people, white people, asian people, middle eastern ppl etc etc??


this is retarded

[yudalicious]

Physical evidence? I'm sorry but like I said if I can't see creatures 'evolving' from one creature into a completely different one. Or one creature developing completely new features (eg; growing new wings, me getting ultra violent vision, ultra sound hearing, etc...) I can't buy into it as 'evidence'. Simple as that. Evidence is suppose to be physical like you yourself said.

Out of curiosity, do you apply the same amount of skepticism that you have for evolution to religious doctrines and beliefs as well? Methinks someone here is trying really hard here to prove that his way of thinking is the right one...



What you fail to see is that evolution should be classified not as science but rather as a belief as well. It is just a way to prove not how things work in nature but rather to prove that God is not necessary and that out of chaos magical things happen that somehow turn into order.
If using the best evidence available to logically construct a most likely scenario or system that is congruent with the evidence, and tailoring it when new evidence arises is not science, then mind offering us your definition of science?

[a_ahmed]

mmm yeah us being zapped down in a lightning bolt like the terminator is way more believable.......

god zaps down one man and one women, they bang and have kids...there kids bang and have kids etc etc etc until there are billions of us, so the human race is all one giant incestial family? cool, now explain to me if there was only one man and one woman why there are black, people, white people, asian people, middle eastern ppl etc etc??


this is retardedI think your understanding of God, religion, etc.. is skewed by cartoons and movies. You are using your imagination without evidence.

All science has been doing is eliminating models of God or false gods, rather than God.

I said I believe God created humans, and that all humans are our ancestors, our brothers, sisters of past generations. The evidence for humans coming from humans is right here and there, around us and in the earth. And the process of us reproducing we are all familiar with (eg; sex).

You didn't exactly disprove or prove anything.

What I was trying to show you is that evolution theory is just that, a belief, an alternative belief.

It's either God craeted and maintains (my belief) or God created and let loose chaos (deism), or God did not create, and all life/etc.. is an accidental result -- chaos.

So you can believe what you want, to me God being a creator is more logical of a belief, than chaos being the chaotic 'creator' of everything including us.

Why? Because I see everything around us, in nature, in us literally, in the universe as an order of things, with function and purpose.

I see all creatures including humans as perfect examples of design and amazing machines, not accidents, without purpose, etc...

That's the difference of belief.

The problem is most evolutionists are presenting evolution as this absolute eternal truth all around us. Swaying left and right, and it being like this great fact of life, full of evidences, physical or ? while in fact it is nothing but a belief itself.


Yudalicious - I apply skepticism to everything. You have to ultimately accept something as a belief, so you can't be a skeptic who does not belief in his own existence that's cookoo, but I believe in absolute truth, and I always go through a deductive reasoning in everything I question.

[yudalicious]

God created the first humans. We are all brothers and sisters in humanity with a common source.

Now you may say, how can you prove that. It's a belief, I'm not denying that. But to me this is a far more logical belief than us coming randomly out of no where or randomly out of some other creatures (which came from what and who again, etc...? endless paradox).
Experiments show there is spontaneous generation of organic molecules, amino acids, lipid bilayers, etc., the building blocks of cellular life.


As the Christian brethren would say "there had to be an intial mover". St. Thomas Aquinas 'proofs of God' through logic and reasoning were actually yoinked from Muslim philosophers lol. Just thought I'd state that, but his writings in this regards are kind of neat too although limited.
So what precedes God? Where did God come from? Who is His initial mover? I'm not trying to turn this into a religion vs. science debate, but you seem to have already accepted one over the other and are just selectively looking for evidence to destroy the other.

[a_ahmed]

Sorry but spontaneous generation is a belief of the medieval age.

Even the human embryo and the genetic code inserted thereof goes through a growth designed process just a a programmer codes source code and compiles it. It is selective, but purposeful, not disorderly or dysfunctional or chaotic in nature. It doesn't come out of nothing. There's a due process in it, and it is perfectly organized.

As we develop nano-technology further we will even more understand the amazing nature of all creation. The more I learn about nature, about the universe, about technology, engineering, whatever it may be, the more I believe in God.

[aa87]

Misinformations in evolution exist in this thread.

Evolution isnt just spontaneous change in a generation, or even several generations. Spontaneous changes can occur in random mutations, denying that mutations exist would be erratic. And if these mutations prove to be advantageous, those survive species survive, and mutations become more prevalent, developed until a new advantageous feature comes about.

I'll try to find a video that we saw in biology, creationists vs. evolutionists and the rapage in the courts.

I find it odd that we and the primates are the only organisms on earth to undergo mensis, a monthly menstrual period, while other organisms have an annual period. Just weird links like that add up to the evidence.

[Omarius Maximus]

Ok I tried to stay out of this but it pulled me in..
First off the Articles presumption that because homo erectus and homo hablis existed side by side thereby challenging evolution is ludicrous at best.
Its a proven fact that the Homonid tree we came from has many branchs.
Does evolution exist? Of course it does its been proven in thousands of species scientifically. Does evolution rule out the existence of a superior being that created all aka God? No.
I have stated this before and I will say it again some of the most brilliant Scientists of our times have stated a belief in more than meets the eye.
A_ahmed to say that the existence of God is a explanation for there being no evolution is a Scientific fail. Science has already proven that Evolution of species exists. Evolution of the Universe exists. Evolution itself exists. The only thing they have not figured out is the complete lineage of the family tree that man has come from. Did we evolve from something? Yes. Not to challange your faith, but the question that even great Physicists I personally know that are indeed faithful believers in God ask at what moment did God have a hand. I.E. At what moment did our souls come to exist differentiating us from other species lower down the evolutionary chain?
To just through out the Evolution for the sake of the fact that you have a belief in God is just throwing out the baby with the bath water. Its a breakdown of intelligent reasoning and borders on religious fanaticism, be it right wing Christian, Muslim, whatever!
Stop this useless arguement because at the end of the day there is room in the intelligent world for a combination of theories to exist.
To not agree to the Scientific proof before our eyes based solely on a religious belief is not using your intellectual capacities properly at best at worst its Religious fanaticism in my opinion.

Wow...for once in my life, I agree with what you're saying.

[a_ahmed]

You know I can find plenty videos too, but that's just lame. You can find videos of evolutionists kicking ass of creationists but then I can find creationists kicking ass of evolutionists. That's just stupid, might as well watch WCW vs NWO or something.

Matter of fact is, what I'm trying to actually prove is the fact that evolution is nothing but a belief, an alternate option people who disbelieve in God or believe in the possibility of God alongside chaos believe.

Coming off with strong arguments like "what are you talking about there is evidence it has been accepted by the science community". Is like saying "what are you talking about, you never heard of bogrers? They have been talked about for so long, the scientific community is constantly proving how they exist, what are you, you have no clue?"

Coming off at somebody like WOAH and everyone else believing in bogrers going like "YEA exactly YEA MAN" lol.

It's just a belief, that's all. It's not truth. Cause if it was, it would be undeniable.

I just said I believe in God. You don't have to, but I don't believe in evolution as I don't buy into it, its just another set of beliefs to me, not science.

Science would be trying and repeating something. If you can't repeat evolution or even show one hardcore instance of it, its not true its just a theory you want to believe in.

[ThatGuy]

Why can it not be both?

Religions state that God created Man.
Is it so hard to think that perhaps God took Millions of years to achieve this process? Thus giving scientists the clues they have seen to support a strictly evolution way of thinking.

So some teachings state that it only took God a day to create man. How long is a day to God? If he is indeed the real greater being, why would he follow the schedule set up by his creations, dealing with the rotation of another of his creations.

Big Bang theory? Could certainly be true, but consider this: Who lit the fuse? :keke:

Open your minds. Look at it from both sides.

[a_ahmed]

I like your thinking ThatGuy. Good argument. However such a plausible argument would have to have evolution actually existing in nature on a constant repetitive undeniable basis. In other words. You can PROVE that a chicken came from some fish or something. That's not gonna happen. But I can prove that my parents had intimacy and thus I came to be, and their parents had intimacy and they happened, and their parents had intimacy and they happened, etc... That is why it is just that, a theory for some to prove for some to believe.

However, the whole idea behind evolution is to prove an alternative as to God being the creator, maintainer, sustainer. Rather explaining the process of life and creation of all creatures through chaos, coincidence. All life being coincidence actually. No matter how many different ways different evolutionists come to try to explain it. It comes down to that. All life being based on coincidence.

[yudalicious]

Sorry but spontaneous generation is a belief of the medieval age.
Medieval age? The experiment happened in the 20th century.


Even the human embryo and the genetic code inserted thereof goes through a growth designed process just a a programmer codes source code and compiles it. It is selective, but purposeful, not disorderly or dysfunctional or chaotic in nature. It doesn't come out of nothing. There's a due process in it, and it is perfectly organized.


It is not perfectly organized. There's so many things that can go wrong. The human body isn't perfectly designed, there's many physiological processes that are counterintuitive, especially in a disease state.

Like I said before, most of what you say is really just fluff. It offers no evidence against evolution nor for creationism. Basically all I read is: wow the human body is a marvel! Therefore, because it IS a marvel, God must have created it in its current and present form!

[ThatGuy]

Ahmed, granted evolution may not always be as evident as some would like it to be to prove the "theory".

However, neither is religion. Many of the structures and events from Religious teachings have never been proven by human means.

Both Creationism and Evolution require a certain of level "Faith". Whether it be in science, or Ancestral Teachings.

I am not going to argue which side is right. I am not going to express my personal beliefs here. I am simply saying that arguing either side unwaveringly is a steep uphill battle, and typically not worth the outcome.

[Omarius Maximus]

You know I can find plenty videos too, but that's just lame. You can find videos of evolutionists kicking ass of creationists but then I can find creationists kicking ass of evolutionists. That's just stupid, might as well watch WCW vs NWO or something.

Matter of fact is, what I'm trying to actually prove is the fact that evolution is nothing but a belief, an alternate option people who disbelieve in God or believe in the possibility of God alongside chaos believe.

Coming off with strong arguments like "what are you talking about there is evidence it has been accepted by the science community". Is like saying "what are you talking about, you never heard of bogrers? They have been talked about for so long, the scientific community is constantly proving how they exist, what are you, you have no clue?"

Coming off at somebody like WOAH and everyone else believing in bogrers going like "YEA exactly YEA MAN" lol.

It's just a belief, that's all. It's not truth. Cause if it was, it would be undeniable.

I just said I believe in God. You don't have to, but I don't believe in evolution as I don't buy into it, its just another set of beliefs to me, not science.

Science would be trying and repeating something. If you can't repeat evolution or even show one hardcore instance of it, its not true its just a theory you want to believe in.

The fact of the matter is ALL of science is a belief. ALL of science is based on theory, and everything we know today in terms of science is not absolute.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

But guess what...I'd rather rely on the theory that gives me the microwave, the internal cumbustion engine, modern medicine, etc...

If I put my money on people walking on water, or coming back to life...We'd be in the stone age...

[flip3d]

ThatGuy.. so you're saying that God took millions of years to create man? That means the bible is wrong then.

Oh well. It's just a book of stories anyway.

Omarius, I completely agree with you though. I'd take the microwave over magic any day.

[ThatGuy]

I'm not attempting to disprove the Bible or any other basis for any religion. I'm not that naive.

I am merely offering yet another way of thinking.
Not Creation, not Evolution, but a harmony of the two.

[a_ahmed]

yudalicious - sorry but I can't accept spontaneous generation, that is medieval science.

And the human body is perfect you're just not looking at it from the perspective I explained. You are looking for possibilities that can harm a human (eg; mutation causing dismanglment of the body, disease attacking the body, etc...). Otherwise the human body is an amazing machine with perfect orderly function. Studying human anatomy amazed me, and increased my belief in God, not other way around.

ThatGuy - I was just trying to show how evolution in itself just a belief but everyone is trying to cover up that fact in a nutshell. And in response to the theocratic Europe which had little to do with God but power of humans, followed by the the reactionary rise of secularism, science has been shown as this superior, as this ultimate logic, as this ultimate truth, but actually it is JUST a tool to tinker with findings which can be true or not true.

Perfect example of how science fails is well known, it is never constant. It is JUST a tool people use... Otherwise Greek 'scientists' and the church would still be right about the earth being flat, the earth being at the center of the earth, etc...

omarius maxiums - But guess what...I'd rather rely on the theory that gives me the microwave, the internal cumbustion engine, modern medicine, etc...

If I put my money on people walking on water, or coming back to life...We'd be in the stone age...Whether you have a knife or gun you would kill
Whether you have a mud house or a house of titanium you would sleep in it.
Whether you have microwave or a wood fire you would cook
Whether you have an ION ENGINE forget internal combustion engine, or a horse, you would travel.
Whether you went to a 'witch doctor' which used natural ingridients or a 'modern medical doctor' that basically took those same ingridients and just commercialized them, you would get healing.

Fact is, technology does not change nothing. Look at China and Burma. A few earthquakes and few storms and all of that is rendered powerless and useless. All the technology in the world would be power useless if a meteor struck the earth.

Whether it is one thousand years ago, or one thousand years in the future, people will believe in God or not believe in God. That is not something I can force upon someone nor can someone force upon me. In case of Islam, the non muslim arabs who attacked Islam at the time of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that they were 'modern' and that Islam was nothing but tales of the ancient. Imagine that, today we deem them as savages who used to kill one another those tribal pre-Islamic Arabs living in ignorance, yet they used to think Islam was a tale of the ancients. Just a point, what I meant to illustrate is the fact that technology or the means of humans does not change whether we should or should not believe in one thing or another.

Truth is Independant of human history, human experience, etc... that is why science is not perfect and should not be presented as perfect, it is just a tool. And evolution is just a belief.

The best example of science is this: I touch fire, fire hurts me, I don't touch fire again. Very basic science. And then you will teach that to someone and everyone else will know fire will hurt you if you touch it with bare hands you too will feel pain. Extremely basic example. It's a tool where you use your mind to come to certain conclusions based on your five senses. I can go deeper than that, imagine now, I realize fire is not really 'fire' but rather something else, and heat is not really heat but rather energy, and I start thinking about it all, here we go I'm going deeper, I'm conceptualizing, I'm thinking. I try something else, I repeat it, voila. That's science. Just a tool.

[hitman]

im not gonna read this whole thread, but thats how evolution works. its gradual, the others might "slowly die out" or stay that species, or evolve into something else. its not like one person was born and all the things it evolved from turn into dust.

edit,
therefore, they must have lived side by side for a definite period of time.

[eastcoastS14]

there will always be unanswered questions but to look at the origin of species stricly from a religious point of view is kind of dumb....the argument that because we are perfected life forms is proof of god is kind of ridiculous, the seeming organization of an egg and reproduction is definitely no accident, reproduction and physical traits of animals all exist because they are essential to survival, if reproduction wasnt a totally precise process the human race wouldnt have survived long enough for you to be writing this anyway...thats not proof of god, its proof of a neccessity of survival ...

to claim that evolution is a hoax is incredibly ridiculous....I dont claim that god 100% does not exist because the fact is I dont know that to be true, like I said, I really hope that there is a god, but thats where faith comes in, you dont know it to be true but you have faith that it is....science isnt based on faith, its based on research and fact. So I go by what can be proven but I hope for something that cannot be

[flip3d]

We're all going to end up evolving into an orange hairless being because of interracial relations...

Just like in South Park. We'll have time traveling refugees and everything. :P


Goobacks lol...

http://www.comedycentral.com/press/images/southpark/806Goobacks2_thumbnail.jpg

[a_ahmed]

Well you know I find that funny. Proof of the necessity of survival.

How can we survive if we have no male and female, have no sexual organs?

That's what I'm trying to show you, to think on very basic terms, to let yourself free of the idea that evolution is this absolute truth of nature, it is not, it is just a belief hence being a theory. I am myself saying I BELIEVE IN GOD, and I know you don't, but I am trying to show you something about evolution here. Yes I don't believe in evolution and I'm giving my reasons for not believing in evolution. But what I'm really trying to show is that evolution is just that, a belief, an alternative belief where God has no part in creation and it's all chaos (otherwise for deists or agnostics maybe God but still ultimately chaos)

Again how can you and I survive if we have no males and females, furthermore no sexual reproductive organs? You may say there are asexual creatures, but how did they decide then to suddenly reproduce and wait... how did they get a penis and a vagina? How did they develop completely different and distinct male and female appearances. How did they develop lusts and desires for one another in order to reproduce? Or something like that? Was it two homos who had lust for one another and then suddenly they over millions of years developed differently? Cmon... sounds stupid but no really where's the common sense?

No really, it's very simple down to earth common-sense logic... I don't need anthropomorphic artists trying to educate me about how life came to be. That's for frickin Zeus and Apollo and Hercules and whatever Greek mythology eras in my opinion. That's why 'creationists' what they do they explain how nature works, but they say we believe in God as the cause, and the creator and sustainer and maintaner, that there is actual order not chaos or coincidences or accidents. Don't compare me to Christian Creationists as if I'm trying to prove the bible. I'm trying to explain why I don't believe in evolution and instead believe in God. Christian Creationists go sometimes to ridiculous and unrealistic length trying to 'prove' the bible even if it's not science. That's not me. I believe in science as a useful human tool.

[Omarius Maximus]

Ironically, human beings are an exception to evolution. For better or worse, there is no natural selection in modern civilization.

A_Ahmed...it's simply a matter of time and convenience.
The less time it takes you to do the essentials; finding food, cooking food, building homes, etc etc
The more time you have for the finer things in life: art, science, education in general..

I was born and raised in a developing country. When your primary concern is putting food in your stomach, you are closer to beast than you are to a human being. Science is what seperates us from the animals.

If you disagree, go and wash yourself with no heated water in the freezing cold of winter...

Or maybe go and use an outhouse and clean your ass with a rock.

Or you could have a "witch doctor" pour battery acid on an open wound because of the fear of infection.

It's not the same. I've lived through it.

[yudalicious]

yudalicious - sorry but I can't accept spontaneous generation, that is medieval science.

And the human body is perfect you're just not looking at it from the perspective I explained. You are looking for possibilities that can harm a human (eg; mutation causing dismanglment of the body, disease attacking the body, etc...). Otherwise the human body is an amazing machine with perfect orderly function. Studying human anatomy amazed me, and increased my belief in God, not other way around.


Medieval science? The experiment itself was done in the 50s or 60s. Are you still as close minded as to call it medieval science? It happened. Amino acids and organic products were made. Does it prove evolution or disprove God? No. But to ignore it's existence and calling it medieval science... seems pretty convenient for you doesn't it?

Sure the body is perfect from your perspective, but then again, if you only look at it only from your perspective, then evolution is a load of crap and people that believe in it like me are weak minded and uneducated. Studying anatomy, histology, endocrinology, embryology, biochemistry, immunology, neuroscience blah blah has made me realize that the human body is amazing, but it's not perfect.

I'm not here to argue with you science vs religion because I believe that's something to be resolved on your personal terms, but alot of what you said about science and evolution is just plainly wrong. The fact that you evaluate the validity of evolution vs. creation differently and the fact that you seem to be a staunch skeptic of the evidence of evolution but are so quick to accept what scarce evidence there is for creationism make me think that you already have your mind made up and are just selectively looking for evidence to prove your side of the argument.

[a_ahmed]

I think you are misunderstanding. I am not against Science. I just don't believe in evolution and I'm showing you how evolution is just a belief. You don't have to know or not know science to believe in evolution and vice versa.

Alot of you are viewing all these arguments in a perspective of reactionary theocratic europe transitioning into the secularist modern west. Equating all talk of God with Christianity and the Church and the bible.

Most of the scientists credited to alot of transitional modern science and mathematics were Muslims for instance. When it was hard for medieval Europe to accept the earth being spherical, Muslims knew it and thought it thousands years back with no fear as the goal of using science was to prove the truth not to prove Christianity right which I believe similarly you guys are getting the idea that I am trying to 'prove the bible' or insert random religious text.

The scientific method was developed by Muslims not Greeks, Greeks' 'scientific method' was not really verified evidence based it was limited to observations, Muslims when they studied ancient greek works understood that and implemented a refined process and hence came the scientific method. You can't just blindly believe in something because someone observed something somewhere some time, maybe.

Evolution theory often plainly used as "oh yeah it happened cause of evolution" as if its a fact of life. It's a theory, a belief, that you can't repeat or prove. A belief my friend a belief.


I'm not here to argue with you science vs religion because I believe that's something to be resolved on your personal terms, but alot of what you said about science and evolution is just plainly wrong. The fact that you evaluate the validity of evolution vs. creation differently and the fact that you seem to be a staunch skeptic of the evidence of evolution but are so quick to accept what scarce evidence there is for creationism make me think that you already have your mind made up and are just selectively looking for evidence to prove your side of the argument.Being on the defensive for evolution and staunchly believing in so called evidences proves that you've actually made up your mind. Don't assume I know nothing, I am not assuming from anyone that they know nothing either. Understanding science, and any other topic of discussion or knowledge does not necessitate belief in one thing or another. You could have the most brilliant scientist, philosopher, doctor, animator, mechanic, etc... and he or she could still believe or disbelieve in evolution.

And in reference to the rest of your post. That's a difference of opinion. I don't see how your criticisms of our human body, proves evolution at all either. I see it as perfect and I'm amazed at it, and what I said earlier, the development of nano technology will only increase my belief in God. I am amazed at nano technology as it shows how behind we humans are technologically and with understanding of the chemical, physical and astronomical construct of our universe and all that's around us being made possible with such order and function.

All that we MAKE is nothing but immitation of that which is around us.

Ironically, human beings are an exception to evolution. For better or worse, there is no natural selection in modern civilization.

A_Ahmed...it's simply a matter of time and convenience.
The less time it takes you to do the essentials; finding food, cooking food, building homes, etc etc
The more time you have for the finer things in life: art, science, education in general..

I was born and raised in a developing country. When your primary concern is putting food in your stomach, you are closer to beast than you are to a human being. Science is what seperates us from the animals.

If you disagree, go and wash yourself with no heated water in the freezing cold of winter...

Or maybe go and use an outhouse and clean your ass with a rock.

Or you could have a "witch doctor" pour battery acid on an open wound because of the fear of infection.

It's not the same. I've lived through it.Omarius maximums - Well I travelled the world as well and I was actually a refugee. It still to me does not change anything in this respective. You either believe in one thing or another.

What is amusing is how all those who believe in evolution are professing different explanations and opinions about evolution itself even, it is so inconclusive it is unbelievable.

Also I think the witch doctor thing you should re-read because you misunderstood my point.

Also the first point you mention, people would disagree with you but again there is so much disagreement amongst evolutionists about what's really going on.

A few months back there was some ridiculous anthropomorphic drawings on BBC and an article about how we humans are going to evolve into two different humans, that we are going to de-evolve and they had all these illustrations and drawings. I found it RIDICULOUS but it was portrayed as 'science' and as always Charles Darwin was mentioned and honored as "the greatest scientist in human history" while the article went into great detail why we will evolve one way or another. So I guess that is not true then, apparently some people believe that evolution is still going on in our species so your own personal belief of evolution is in conflict with what is 'apparently' happening.

I don't see no 'conspiracy'. I just see people fighting to prove why they disbelieve in God and why they don't believe in God. And all sides fighting for their beliefs.

What I was trying to prove was that evolution is just a belief it is not this ultimate fact of nature we can repeat all around us all the time... beeecauuusse it happens over millions of years... and of course we can't really prove that either. What I was trying to prove was that when someone mentions 'science' it does not mean science = evolution, and religion = creationism and thus science can never be = religion. That's rubbish. Maybe the theocratic Europe had problems reconciling science and truth with religion but Islam never had that problem. Likewise furthermore evolution theory should not be pushed forward as this absolute truth because its not, its just a theory that the science TOOL is trying to prove for some people but it is failing hence remaining theory.

[BBSilvia]

im still very young and dont know much about either topic but what i do know is everybody has thier own beliefs, trying to prove them wrong or right is stupid because they most likely are NOT going to change their mind.

[mRclARK1]

Evolution is full of flaws, problems and questions. Don't agree? Well, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with a slowly growing number of scientists and evolutionary experts who are starting to feel this way. Even the late Steven Jay Gould, whose field was evolutionary biology at Harvard University, questioned many of evolutions paleontological stances and supposed evidence. There is a stigma around evolution similar to Global Warming it seems however, that if anyone even questions it or has any evidence against it, an immediate witch hunt and questioning of personal charachter and scientific method ensues. Almost as though dissent is not tolerated. Believe or be discounted.

Any evolutionary scientist (including my Geology professor in a conversation after class with me and several other students) who is being honest will admit to two things. The first: Evolution is very much just a THEORY... it lacks a lot of evidence and has much evidence in the fossil record that even blatantly contradicts it among many other problems in physics, chemistry etc. The second: No scientist ever wants to say "I don't know"

Myself, I've always kind of thought the origin of life is a little pointless to get worked up about. In either case, it's here, something put it here, and eventually something is going to take it back. If chance created it, chance WILL destroy it at some point. If God created it, then it begs the age old question of "What happens when I die" and life is over.

FWIW I personally believe in an ultimate intelligent design, but don't discount a form of evolution of being a possibility. If you believe in a God you should be able to reconcile that God may do things you don't understand, and that anything that happens, is his doing ultimately anyway. That does not mean I believe in an intelligent design on blind faith however. Just the opposite.

A lot of the arguements on boths sides made in this thread lack logic and scientific basis. To argue this subject adequately is not easy, or something that can be done on the interweb really. lolz... I don't think any of us are Masters or PhD level biochemists, geologists, biologists, physics professors or mathematicians etc.

[BBSilvia]

There are many good points to each side can we just let this god and evolution thing go no one is going to change any bodys views...its just not going to happen and to keep on topic good article and that shows we still have so much to learn

[a_ahmed]

Good post and well said. Not that I sound credible saying this just like that lol... but again to re-iterate a friend of mine works in research labs, he has a PhD in biochemistry he too does not believe in evolution. So what? You don't HAVE to believe in evolution just because you have knowledge or experience or some skills or something...

I like what you said in the first paragraph because it very much so is true... it's as if a witch hunt ensues. It is just a belief, that is all. I don't ascribe to it, and anyone else who does not ascribe to it does not necessarily have to be a no body or clueless or without knowledge or not a scientist or researcher or doctor, etc...

And in regards to the things you said God can do anything, in respect to evolution... well that is true, but, like I said in response to ThatGuy's argument which I respected in the discussion was the fact that, in that logic evolution would have to be true in order to coincide with the puzzle. Otherwise we could say God could have created superman and spiderman and the hulk, but it's not true. Man I wish I could fly :-/ That's the one thing I would want in heaven lol... so frickin cool. I know we can build planes but it's just not the same haha

[Phlip]

I apologize for clicking on, then losing the entire first quarter of the basketball game -repping people for their responses in this thread.
I still decide to believe what I believe.
intelligent design
n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

I offer the rest of you the chance to believe what you do, I will respect your right to not care about what I think, and expect you to do the same for me... No argument will commence as a result.

[mRclARK1]

In regards to the original article. I don't see it really challenging evolution all that much. It brings up a few minor questions and doubts, but there are many much more established and older challenges to evolution that still remained completely unanswered. What it does however is remind everyone, but especially evolution believing members of the scientific community, that things can be fact in science one day... and the next?

[drift freaq]

I like your thinking ThatGuy. Good argument. However such a plausible argument would have to have evolution actually existing in nature on a constant repetitive undeniable basis. In other words. You can PROVE that a chicken came from some fish or something. That's not gonna happen. But I can prove that my parents had intimacy and thus I came to be, and their parents had intimacy and they happened, and their parents had intimacy and they happened, etc... That is why it is just that, a theory for some to prove for some to believe.

However, the whole idea behind evolution is to prove an alternative as to God being the creator, maintainer, sustainer. Rather explaining the process of life and creation of all creatures through chaos, coincidence. All life being coincidence actually. No matter how many different ways different evolutionists come to try to explain it. It comes down to that. All life being based on coincidence.

Wow, you contradict yourself! By stating that you like Thatguys thinking your basically agreeing with the majority of my earlier post. Thatguys post pretty much sums up what I was already saying. The only difference is he stays off the hot button of your fanaticism.
The only people who use Evolution as a theory to disprove God are as much fanatics as you are.
Evolution does not suggest chaos cause evolution is not chaotic. Evolution is a event of change through adaptation and growth over a long period of time (in our perception of time). Adaptation happens for the sake of survival and growth happens everywhere from a molecular to sub atomic situation. In fact growth has a mathematical basis.

Stephen Hawking suggested the shear complexity of the Universe almost undeniably proves the existence of God or a Superior being.
Now another forum member in another thread tried to suggest that Science was not faith based yet the shear building blocks of molecular Science are built on the faith of something that has not yet been proven. Hence we have theories.

To many people try to separate faith and science when in actuality they do walk hand in hand. The only difference is Scientists try to find the reasons and the proof for the faith.

Fanatical religious believers suggest only that it happened because of God and that things could not possibly have evolved even though evidence is in front of their own eyes. Did God create? Thats a faith question. Did God create something that could have evolved? I say most definitely, the proof is already there.
In the end you try to dismiss a lot of factual science with characterizations of your own not based on real education but your own assumptions. You call your schools brainwashing yet your fanatical attempts to prove us all wrong when we have facts, suggests religious brainwashing.

This whole thread has turned into your own personal stumping post for your own religious beliefs. Plus your attempts to argue the reasons against any other line of thinking. That again reeks of fanaticism.

At this point it would be in the best interest of everyone to agree to disagree! A lot of people have already stated in the thread that they are willing to accept multiple theories, but you on the other hand still insist your way and thoughts are the only truth.

[ESmorz]

Yay another Religion v.s. Science thread.

[Matej]

This challenges nothing, it merely means that there was another offshoot sub-species that eventually disappeared, just like the Neanderthals, which co-existed with other humans and then just died off.
Exactly, this doesn't challenge evolution. That's like saying that hippos and elephants can't coexist at the same time.
The article actually supports evolution.


-Edit-
this in no way challenges evolution, it actually supports it
Oops sorry looks like I'm late to this thread.

[status:one]

I believe this find may change our family tree... but it doesn't challenge our evolution.
If this subject truly interests anyone... i highly recommend watching "The Human Ape" on National Geo. channel. Extremely interesting documentary and brings a lot of hard evidence to the evolution theory of human beings.

[Baka Sama]

Why can it not be both?

Religions state that God created Man.
Is it so hard to think that perhaps God took Millions of years to achieve this process? Thus giving scientists the clues they have seen to support a strictly evolution way of thinking.

So some teachings state that it only took God a day to create man. How long is a day to God? If he is indeed the real greater being, why would he follow the schedule set up by his creations, dealing with the rotation of another of his creations.

Big Bang theory? Could certainly be true, but consider this: Who lit the fuse? :keke:

Open your minds. Look at it from both sides.

Thank You. The bible records the entire history of earth and man in only a few short chapters. Of course there are many many things that are not in detail regarding how the earth was created. Instead of looking at whats not there how bout looking at the evidence that is there! Moses wrote over 3,500 years ago about things that would be impossible to know without modern science today.

ThatGuy.. so you're saying that God took millions of years to create man? That means the bible is wrong then.

Oh well. It's just a book of stories anyway.

Omarius, I completely agree with you though. I'd take the microwave over magic any day.

You fail at knowing anything about the bible.

At Genesis 2:4, Moses described the entire six "days" in the preceding chapter about the creation of earth as only one "day".

2 Peter 3:8 even states that time is completely different to God and humans when it says that 1000 years to God is like one day to man.

The term "day" is very relative, especially to the God that created the sun and moon and made up what we consider days.

A lot of the arguements on boths sides made in this thread lack logic and scientific basis. To argue this subject adequately is not easy, or something that can be done on the interweb really. lolz... I don't think any of us are Masters or PhD level biochemists, geologists, biologists, physics professors or mathematicians etc.

Your right. I just wanted to show an interesting article I was reading. Didnt want to turn it into this. I find that most people who believe in evolution of man from nothing want to believe in it because they dont want to answer to anyone for their own morality. For me, the more I read about evolution the more my faith in God is strengthened.

Anyway, Mod please lock.

:lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd:

[ThatGuy]

Locked at the Thread Starter's request.