Evolution

[Zayex]

Originally Posted by Sexion @belshezzar: although, im a satanist. I do belive god made man, as the bible say. But at the same time, we readlly cant disprove that evolution is a theroy. Scienist, proved that we did come from chimps.

We didn't "come from chimps"

Science has proven that humans, and apes, evolved from a common ape-like ancestor millions of years ago.

Homo erectus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus) was believed to be the bridge between homo habilus and homo sapiens, which was true, but that still didn't prove men came from ape ancestors.

However, Australopithecus Africanus is believed to be the earliest link between humans (homo) and apes (hominini)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus)

Evolution and creationism shouldn't be an argument topic, they're saying the same thing but in different ways. At this point, we've pretty much proven that all life evolved from single-celled organisms, (Which in theory, arrived from asteroids) and that god didn't poof down the millions of animal species. People like to think of themselves as "Superior beings" to the animals, so they get butthurt when they hear about evolution being correct in many ways, but humans are indeed animals, our hyper-intelligence is the only thing seperating us from the other mammals.

If you want to get all conspiracy theory with me for a second (ancient aliens type conspiracy-ish) then listen to this:

Perhaps god didn't poof everything down in 7 days, and there's no explanation that we went from still figuring out basic tools as homo erectus and habilus to gaining such intelligence in a only a few hundred thousand to a million years later, perhaps god (or even aliens) genetically engineered us to progress faster intellectually. It would certainly explain the sudden surge of intelligence (And of course, you may argue "zomgz well uh, we were meant to evolve this way so there is no god blshg" but the process for us to evolve so quickly mentally, would take a lot more time then it did, which definitely hints at gene manipulation of some sort, you can't deny that.

Then there's the sumarian tablets, people say that the sumerian tablets are a longer, more detailed version of the bible (Which is most likely true, due to the striking similarities) but the sumarians say, that the extra-terrestrial annunaki, lived a lifespan of several hundred thousand years.

So if god created the world in 7 days, perhaps it was 7 days annunaki time-wise, and not earth-days.

These are just trippy alien theories, though.

My point is, evolution and creationism argue the same thing, but creationism could be metaphorically speaking (Conspiracy thoery in 3.. 2.. 1.. the garden of eden was a testing site, where patients adam and eve were genetically enhanced from the local population of homo erectus and habilus)

Even if my alien conspiracy stuff is wrong (Which it could be) evolution has proven many things, you can't argue and say "Uh, no, god made me in his image, and I didn't evolve from some smelly monkey!" Because you did. But evolution being right doesn't disprove creationism, either. The big bang could very well be god creating the universe, there's no definite proof of it.

tl;dr = evolution is mostly correct, but that doesn't mean god isn't real.

Edit: Ooh, metaphor time!

Let's say there's the common housecat, and one day, the house cat evolves into 2 seperate species, one of them is genetically engineered (Or divinely engineered) to be hyper-intelligent, while the other remains animalistic. Then the furry cat people would say "Uh, no, I didn't evolve from a stupid cat, catgod made me in his image etc"

The same exact concept applies. Think about it.

[EvilStealthWarrior]

First: Evolution is taught in schools.I remember the theory back in high school .I believe it was biology class ,etc. There's is nothing saying that evolution is not true. In-fact It happens to be going on right now. So let's see how can evolution happen or how can a generation set be pushed to a brink of evolution.
I'm gonna come up with a sketch for this later ,but for now I'll just use a diorama and let you use your imagination.
The Island: Ok, you Send a certain amount of diverse ,but amounted people on a island lets say a population of 120-200 (Large size island that is). These people have no contact with outside world ,They are forced to eat,use,survive with the contents of the island ,since Reproduction is so crucial to our kind. There will be a set of differences happening over the years.Maybe a certain acquired talent, maybe physical features will out grow our own ,but By all means setting an amount like that on an island for years(maybe 15 or more ) will cause some sort of evolution.
Apes & Humans :[COLOR="Purple"]Simply No, Even the man(Charles Darwin) Who came up with the theory of evolution and all its extents to it said that He had not meant for scientist to take it so Far to saying that Humans evolved from Apes and Chimps. Just ,Because many stations of our bodied were similar. Sadly, they did take it farther. To where Humans had no existence or meaning until Apes came in to place. I agree many things about them come so close to us and actually it is partly a question of definition.

Originally Posted by marco We have a tailbone and a useless appendix. We also share 98% of our DNA with chimps.

Right you are sir, buttttttttt some biologist would classify humans as apes, in that case, there is no difference. Until fairly recently, most biologists classified humans as hominids - separate from apes. The problem with this is that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to other apes, so something was clearly wrong.

Recently chimpanzees and gorillas have been reclassified as hominids (along with humans)
^wtf make up your mind already. So, having got that out of the way!

There aren't that many definite differences ,but once there are some you can conclude a cause and reason for them yourself.

Cons to man & apes : Humans walk upright, most apes are knuckle walkers. This may be because its slightly more efficient to walk upright when travelling long distances - a common theory is that early humans were nomads; it looks likely that walking upright predates language, so it's a relatively old adaptation. It also frees up our hands to carry weapons and use tools, but that behavior probably became important much later. The downside is that humans get backache - because the backbone is balanced vertically rather than supported on four legs.

Humans can hold their breath, no other existing ape or hominid can do that - its to do with the way the tubes are arranged in the throat. The plus side of this is that we can use articulate language; the downside is that food can go down the wrong way.
Humans are effectively hairless; although we have hairs on our arms and legs, they don't do much for keeping us warm. This is usually explained as part of early Man's nomadic lifestyle as part of a cooling system. There is a controversial hypothosis that early humans spent much of their time in water (the aquatic ape theory); this would explain the loss of hair and holding breath. Fossil evidence is a boring point and should not be argued.

Anyways If You do Not agree with this it's alright .Opinions are theories too.
Read the B.I.B.L.E (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
and then we can have a good talk ,because with out it there would be nothing to learn upon.

agrees with zayrex somewhat

[CrazyTaco]

can you edit that please? i can't read that without my eyes hurting, im being genuinely serious

Originally Posted by EvilStealthWarrior Fossil evidence is a boring point and should not be argued.

what? why not?

[öhanz0]

I have no idea what EvilStealthWarrior is trying to argue.

[Zayex]

Originally Posted by hanz0 I have no idea what EvilStealthWarrior is trying to argue.

EvilStealthWarrior basically ignored my post, said completely random and incorrect things, then said he "partially agreed with me" even though he has no idea what I'm talking about.

[EvilStealthWarrior]

Actually I was posting before you posted but I left and came back then clicked post yours was there so I had to read some of yours and see what I agreed with. I wasnt arguing with you , I was basing my thoughts on evolution .

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Zayex We didn't "come from chimps" Science has proven that humans, and apes, evolved from a common ape-like ancestor millions of years ago. Homo erectus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus) was believed to be the bridge between homo habilus and homo sapiens, which was true, but that still didn't prove men came from ape ancestors. However, Australopithecus Africanus is believed to be the earliest link between humans (homo) and apes (hominini) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus) Evolution and creationism shouldn't be an argument topic, they're saying the same thing but in different ways.

No.

Evolution says that all the animals and living beings evolved from earlier living beings, all the way back to prokaryotes which formed naturally. This eliminates the need for God to exist to create us.

Creation says that we require God for our material existence, that we were created from nothing, and that we need God to keep nature working. This emphasizes the need for God to exist to create us.

Keep in mind the bolded sentences, as they are essential to the understanding of the theological implications of evolution, and to the theology of creation.

At this point, we've pretty much proven that all life evolved from single-celled organisms, (Which in theory, arrived from asteroids) and that god didn't poof down the millions of animal species. People like to think of themselves as "Superior beings" to the animals, so they get butthurt when they hear about evolution being correct in many ways, but humans are indeed animals, our hyper-intelligence is the only thing seperating us from the other mammals.

See my bolded theses.

If you want to get all conspiracy theory with me for a second (ancient aliens type conspiracy-ish) then listen to this:

Or the molecules arranged in such away to allow for life?

Perhaps god didn't poof everything down in 7 days, and there's no explanation that we went from still figuring out basic tools as homo erectus and habilus to gaining such intelligence in a only a few hundred thousand to a million years later, perhaps god (or even aliens) genetically engineered us to progress faster intellectually. It would certainly explain the sudden surge of intelligence (And of course, you may argue "zomgz well uh, we were meant to evolve this way so there is no god blshg" but the process for us to evolve so quickly mentally, would take a lot more time then it did, which definitely hints at gene manipulation of some sort, you can't deny that.

Science hasn't been able to touch why we have the conceptual intelligence we do.

Then there's the sumarian tablets, people say that the sumerian tablets are a longer, more detailed version of the bible (Which is most likely true, due to the striking similarities) but the sumarians say, that the extra-terrestrial annunaki, lived a lifespan of several hundred thousand years.

So it wasn't a supernatural God that created us, but an extra terrestrial?

So if god created the world in 7 days, perhaps it was 7 days annunaki time-wise, and not earth-days. These are just trippy alien theories, though.

Which are not grounded in any scientific or philosophical arguments at all.

My point is, evolution and creationism argue the same thing, but creationism could be metaphorically speaking (Conspiracy thoery in 3.. 2.. 1.. the garden of eden was a testing site, where patients adam and eve were genetically enhanced from the local population of homo erectus and habilus)

What?

Even if my alien conspiracy stuff is wrong (Which it could be) evolution has proven many things, you can't argue and say "Uh, no, god made me in his image, and I didn't evolve from some smelly monkey!" Because you did. But evolution being right doesn't disprove creationism, either. The big bang could very well be god creating the universe, there's no definite proof of it.

Evolution shows that we don't need a God to exist for ourselves and our animal's natural existence.

Creation says that we need a creator for our natural being, so there must be a God.

This is why the two positions are incompatible.

Evolution is an established fact from science.

Creationism is an argument from dogma and philosophy.

I am going to trust established scientific facts more so than dogma or bad philosophical arguments.

tl;dr = evolution is mostly correct, but that doesn't mean god isn't real.

You're right. But that also means that creationism is wrong. There are better arguments for God's existence, and they don't resemble creationism or deal with creation of the Earth.

Edit: Ooh, metaphor time! Let's say there's the common housecat, and one day, the house cat evolves into 2 seperate species, one of them is genetically engineered (Or divinely engineered) to be hyper-intelligent, while the other remains animalistic. Then the furry cat people would say "Uh, no, I didn't evolve from a stupid cat, catgod made me in his image etc" The same exact concept applies. Think about it.

We can only say something is divinely engineered when there is a need for divine engineering. Genetics can suffice to explain that metaphor, so we don't need to put God into the equation.

Originally Posted by EvilStealthWarrior First: Evolution is taught in schools.I remember the theory back in high school .I believe it was biology class ,etc. There's is nothing saying that evolution is not true. In-fact It happens to be going on right now. So let's see how can evolution happen or how can a generation set be pushed to a brink of evolution. I'm gonna come up with a sketch for this later ,but for now I'll just use a diorama and let you use your imagination.

Evolution is taught in schools because it is a scientifically established theory that is probably true.

The Island Ok, you Send a certain amount of diverse ,but amounted people on a island lets say a population of 120-200 (Large size island that is). These people have no contact with outside world ,They are forced to eat,use,survive with the contents of the island ,since Reproduction is so crucial to our kind. There will be a set of differences happening over the years.Maybe a certain acquired talent, maybe physical features will out grow our own ,but By all means setting an amount like that on an island for years(maybe 15 or more ) will cause some sort of evolution.

Sounds good. Don't know how this addresses the anti-theological implications of evolution though.

Apes & Humans Simply No, Even the man(Charles Darwin) Who came up with the theory of evolution and all its extents to it said that He had not meant for scientist to take it so Far to saying that Humans evolved from Apes and Chimps. Just ,Because many stations of our bodied were similar. Sadly, they did take it farther. To where Humans had no existence or meaning until Apes came in to place. I agree many things about them come so close to us and actually it is partly a question of definition.

Why did you even need to set up you "diorama" if you just proceed to jump into evolution itself?

Also, you don't really explain why humans didn't come from apes.

Right you are sir, buttttttttt some biologist would classify humans as apes, in that case, there is no difference. Until fairly recently, most biologists classified humans as hominids - separate from apes. The problem with this is that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to other apes, so something was clearly wrong.

Biologically, we are extremely similar to apes. This does not mean that we are apes that are just really clever. We have quantitatively and qualitatively increased intellectual ability.

Recently chimpanzees and gorillas have been reclassified as hominids (along with humans) [COLOR="Red"]^wtf make up your mind already. So, having got that out of the way!

Biologically, yes. They are close enough to us biologically that they can be classified with us in biology. This is not the same as saying we are apes in every aspect of our nature.

Cons to man & apes : Humans walk upright, most apes are knuckle walkers. This may be because its slightly more efficient to walk upright when travelling long distances - a common theory is that early humans were nomads; it looks likely that walking upright predates language, so it's a relatively old adaptation. It also frees up our hands to carry weapons and use tools, but that behavior probably became important much later. The downside is that humans get backache - because the backbone is balanced vertically rather than supported on four legs.

Biological differences are not what separate us from apes. Our intellect is.

Humans can hold their breath, no other existing ape or hominid can do that - its to do with the way the tubes are arranged in the throat. The plus side of this is that we can use articulate language; the downside is that food can go down the wrong way. Humans are effectively hairless; although we have hairs on our arms and legs, they don't do much for keeping us warm. This is usually explained as part of early Man's nomadic lifestyle as part of a cooling system. There is a controversial hypothosis that early humans spent much of their time in water (the aquatic ape theory); this would explain the loss of hair and holding breath. Fossil evidence is a boring point and should not be argued.

Biological differences are not what separate us from apes. Our intellect is.

Anyways If You do Not agree with this it's alright .Opinions are theories too. Read the B.I.B.L.E (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth and then we can have a good talk ,because with out it there would be nothing to learn upon. agrees with zayrex somewhat

I know the Bible like the back of my hand. Nowhere in it does it say that humans are unique because they can hold their breath or walk upright.

[Zayex]

Just to correct my statement, I mean to say: You can put together parts of creationism and evolution and have a sturdy foundation (Mostly evolution, with a tiny hint of creationism)

Evolution evolved all life (On earth) from single-celled organisms, yet there is (Could be) a god who created the universe, and possibly, bio-engineered us to evolve faster.

That would probably be the best combination of creationist and evolutionist ideas.

[Redundant]

…ugh, by combining random theories that have little to nothing to do each other you don't really do yourself a favour.
evolution only, and just only describes the phenomenon of adaption through a process called natural selection etc.
Creationism is a whole ideology, world view, religion and whatnot.

If your beliefs need a god for the ultimate cause of existence you are a deist or theist of some sorts but not a creationst.

[L3rk]

@zay: have you seen the evolution chart?