Evolution - True Or False

It's

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
To repeat myself, as I see another derail coming:

The stages of *primate ancestor* to man is 1/1,000,000,000,000th of what is covered by evolutionary theory. Since you are arguing about ape-to-man now, do you then agree that evolution applies to all living things *other* than man?


John99 said:
only when altered with a foreign susbstance. read about it years ago, is this the best you can do?
Click to expand...

And what foreign susbstance would that be? How many years ago? this was only reported 1 year ago, which you would know if you bothered to read the article.
 
Man didnt evolve from apes.

Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.
Click to expand...

http://www.evilbible.com/common_lies.htm

PS, Glow in the dark pigs are cool :cool: hehe
 
That is not true. Although humans and monkeys do share a common ancestor, apes and monkeys diverged first. Gibbons separated from the ape line after that, orangutans after that, gorillas after that. We shared a common ancestor with the chimpanzee about 6 million years ago, which later went on to split into the pygmy and common chimp species. We separated from the line that led to chimpanzees, after all those other apes existed. Chimps should properly be called Homo troglodytes.
 
Last edited:
Gibbon
Orangutan
Gorilla
Chimp
Human

so thats what happened.

What came after chimp and before human? it's hard to tell the first four apart.
 
it is not a stright line.

spidergoat said:
We shared a common ancestor with the chimpanzee about 6 million years ago, which later went on to split into the pygmy and common chimp species.
Click to expand...

We shared an ancestor with chimps, nothing came "after chimps and before humans". What came after the chimpanee and homonid lines diverged, in the line of the homonids? A lot of species, most of which are no longer around:
IIRC, the major ones:
austrolopithacine
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis

Even this is not a straight line, however; last I had heard, neandertals were considered a divergent species due to recent genetic analysis; they came to prominance in certain areas, but then died out. It is not thought that neandertals and erectus interbred, so we are decendants of erectus, but not neandertal (edit: doing further reading, looks like erectus is out of the picture, too). In the more recent past, we have had only two varieties of Homonids:
Homo sapiens, and the recently discovered Homo floresiensis.

Currently, Homo sapiens sapiens is the only variety that exists - us.
 
Last edited:
Here's a handy chart.
diamond01a.jpg
 
spidergoat said:
Missionaries are easily fooled, religion creates superstitious beliefs. Anecdotal reports are not evidence.
Click to expand...


I'm affraid you're incorrect. You might be displaying bias in this case. I say so in a court of law or even in the scientific community everything is subject under the term of evidence.

All historical data is completely relevant. Do you realise that you're displaying a consistent bias against a potential discovery...If the information you require was they're then you're missing it. You've decided it's biased and useless.

That is a common traite of uniformitarianism and it prevails to today. Evidence discarding is a practice many scientist are cultivating in the younger generation...If you don't like the findings...throw it away.
 
in a court of law that particular incident would be hearsay, would it not? In otherwords, it would not be allowed in most cases?

Read this to understand better what science places less weight on stories, and more on measurement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

and in particular, its empahasis on measurable, testable experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism



edit: good idea, spidergoat. in that vien, here's one of just the hominids:
hominidtree.jpg

taken from here: http://www.scientific-art.com
 
Last edited:
All historical data is completely relevant. Do you realise that you're displaying a consistent bias against a potential discovery...If the information you require was they're then you're missing it. You've decided it's biased and useless.
Click to expand...

That is why you cannot have a serious discussion on this subject here. For some odd reason they take this subject personally, as soon as things get too hot they bash Christians - not Muslims not jews not Scientologists not hindus etc.

In some ways it shows when their stuck on something but who cares I am not posting here as a member of any religious group but they just cannot get past that boundary.:bawl:
 
I don't bash Christians above other religious groups. In fact I think Jesus was a pretty cool guy; there are many religions I like less than Christianity. However, most religious groups worldwide (including the Vatican) agree with evolution. If you are going to argue that evolution doesn't exist, but creationism was the root of everything, then in todays' western ideological and political landscape, you are largely grouping yourself with the ID'ers - a group that is nearly all Christian, and relies heavily on Christian mythology. See the KY school board case for a good rundown of the connections between the groups.

I have the same debate with non-christians; Native americans, Hindus, Jew and Muslim. However, you guys have not posited arguements of those religions, you have suggested ideas in line with ID; a Christianity-based concept.
 
Last edited:
Creationists believe evolution per se, but not Darwinian evolution, where that premised prmordial ooze strangely changed into the various animals and plants.
 
Some of the creationists I've talked to over the years believe in evolution - that God created the system, and the system lead to what we have today. But many others do not; that god created everything as we currently see it, less than 10,000 years ago, and nothing has changed since "Let there be light".

Please explain how the former idea is different that Darwinian evolution, where natural selection drives who gets to pass thier genes on, and therefor which traits make it into the next generation.
 
No, genetic variation has been ongoing since the creation of the syngameons, your creationist friends will tell you this, get it straight river-wind, you're deliberately misconstruing the young earth position, we believe in evolution per se, not Darwinian evolution, get it straight, you look ignorant or deceptive in not doing so, and you don't want to look that way, do you?
 
No. Though I don't think I am. You might need to talk with your fellow young-earthers, because a number of those I have talked with have not agreed with your "God created syngameons, they evolved in <10k years into everything".

Are you sure that your "young earth position" is the same as the commonly acepted version amount creationists?


And honest question: if god created a handful of syngameons, and everything came from them, why don't we find thier bones? If the average human life today is 60-80 years, then we should easily be able to track a majority of human skeletons along that timeline. When we find animal skeletons in the same burial pit as human remains historically 4,000-5,000 years old (dated via archeological and written records, not carbon dating), why are they not a half-way point between the modern animal and the originating syngameons? Why do they look nearly fully modern?
 
Last edited:
IceAgeCivilizations said:
No, genetic variation has been ongoing since the creation of the syngameons, your creationist friends will tell you this, get it straight river-wind, you're deliberately misconstruing the young earth position, we believe in evolution per se, not Darwinian evolution, get it straight, you look ignorant or deceptive in not doing so, and you don't want to look that way, do you?
Click to expand...


You are deliberately misconstruing the theory of evolution with your goo obsession.
 
Mod statement

You know. And I will remind you that you are still on my [ENC]troll [/ENC]list in this subforum. Your posts will be moved/removed without any warning. You can get off the [ENC]troll [/ENC]list by participating in the discussion in a constructive manner.
 
Haha. You have a TROLL list?! That is a funny read. Priceless. I can't wait to see what you write about me.

Oh, and isn't Evolution an Observable Fact? Shouldn't it be whether or not Natural Selection is True or False?
 
Saquist said:
I'm affraid you're incorrect. You might be displaying bias in this case. I say so in a court of law or even in the scientific community everything is subject under the term of evidence.

All historical data is completely relevant. Do you realise that you're displaying a consistent bias against a potential discovery...If the information you require was they're then you're missing it. You've decided it's biased and useless.

That is a common traite of uniformitarianism and it prevails to today. Evidence discarding is a practice many scientist are cultivating in the younger generation...If you don't like the findings...throw it away.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. It would be the scientific breaktrough of the millenia if ghosts were proven to exist. Personal testimony may be considered as a starting point, but since people are subject to hallucinations, mass hysteria, optical illusions, hypnosis, false memories, and superstitious beliefs, it cannot be considered the end of the inquiry. As far as I know, no scientific investigation into the phenomenon of ghosts has proven their existence.
 
Ghost don't exist and there's no evidence of them in the bible. There is no astral plane Hell or nether world by spiritual or scientific reckoning.

Which is my stand on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top