I don't understand evolution.

originally posted by: randyvs
An attack? You're reaching at something that wasn't an attack at all.
He said himself he's been around for whopping forty years. I would
use the same word for my own mind whereby existence and a supreme
being are involved. So you're wrong.

Don't worry, Randy - i didn't take it as an attack. A "slight", perhaps but I'm thick-skinned and not easily offended.

In regards to a human lifespan, I'm not pubescent. But, in regards to your "God", which you attribute infinity to -- well, even pubescent is incorrect. Technically I'd be infinitesimally unborn in that regard.

But still, I consider myself a fairly well educated and well rounded person who has travelled the world, seen many cultures and beliefs and in the end, finds NO solace in religion or the man-made concepts of a supreme being.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: SuperFrog

Maybe you can answer this for me FROG?
Why aren't there any early examples of bats and pterosaurs that
are not capable of flight?

Why do you care???

Well, in the course of about 16 thousand years, we went from this:

to this:

Evolution! Dog breeds have been created mainly by selective breeding, but over generations any species can undergo incremental changes by natural means too.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Akragon

Why does it have to relate to any of that?

It doesn't but ( I'm laughing right now ) still people get
all jacked up about something that doesn't even care if they exist.
It doesn't teach or demonstrate or provide anything for these people
in life. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I don't get it and i
guess I never will.

If evolution were true I bet we'd all be so mundane we wouldn't be
worried about killing each other. We'd all just kill ourselves.

clearly your forte is more comedy central than science.

lets leave it at that, shall we?

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

While I agree that dogs are clear example of evolution, latest research tell us that dogs are not direct descendants of wolves, but rather that they share common ancestor with wolves. Foxes are there as well.

But don't forget, OP is not after evidence/data... he really does not care if there is evidence or that his position is based on pure belief no evidence whatsoever, which he mentioned in opening post.

a reply to: noonebutme

But still, I consider myself a fairly well educated and well rounded person who has travelled the world, seen many cultures and beliefs and in the end, finds NO solace in religion or the man-made concepts of a supreme being.

Alright! I mean and thanks for that. I may have said it because it sounded like an attack.
Your response did indicate you barely noticed it. Sometimes I wish I could be like you.
But then again, NF way.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You must be here to put a halt to my thread again?


Do you believe the biopolymer and the operating program of
a living cell can just happen by romantic fate while skinny dipping
in some primordial soup? No lab or lab tech or petri dish? Or is that
just nonsense?

Anybody?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

You must be here to put a halt to my thread again?

17 pages of BS tells me that this thread aint stopping til everyone gets bored and goes home, or a poo fight gets the mods attention.

its a toss up.

Do you believe the biopolymer and the operating program of
a living cell can just happen by romantic fate while skinny dipping
in some primordial soup? No lab or lab tech or petri dish? Or is that
just nonsense?

Anybody?

you dont understand nearly enough about evolution to even make jokes about people who do understand it, especially the people who have dedicated their lives and have published papers and earned their credentials through sleepless nights and frustrated tears and countless gallons of coffee just so they can be ridiculed for their honest work by people who look like preschoolers in comparison. you are deliberately, demonstrably in error, and that leaves you zero room for mocking these scientists and their work.

which is why you do all your mocking on an internet forum, where no one can draw a line between this thread and your face and hold you accountable. not that its worth anyones time to do so.

a reply to: TzarChasm

TzarChasm in the case of evolution, you are the hero!
What a total fascist comment.
Here's a thought, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Not sure how long moderators will allow this trolling topic...



It seems that all ID/Creationism has to offer now days is just trolling like this.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Explain?

Childish rhetoric, that's all you got?

a reply to: UniFinity

Exactly the same could be said about the people who are atheists or to the hard core religious people who don't want to look beyond their prospective and this can bring extremism.

Is it really lack of understanding that solidifies the atheist position, though? I think it's mostly the absence of evidence that leads to this view. Most atheists I know are VERY familiar with the bible and many other faiths as well, they aren't afraid to research and understand things.

What you are referring to is an unverified worldview. It is based on faith, while with evolution, the knowledge is all out there to be studied and understood by anybody who has the drive. With your view, you expect everyone to just believe it. There are no facts to understand. There is no verified knowledge on the subject that can be tested via the scientific method.

Meditation is great, I do it as well, but it's hardly proof of anything related to god or divinity. The mind is a powerful tool. Perception alone can create things in your life that shape your reality. I don't pretend to understand how that all works, but with evolution I don't need to pretend. The hard data is all there. It's easy to wag your finger and say, "you don't understand my view", but there isn't anything tangible to understand. It's based on faith, so you can only try to understand the claims being made. The exact opposite is true for evolution.

FYI ...Tom Selleck cant be Gay. In Quigley Down Under he proudly carried a gun longer than anyone else's on the all Man ranch ....... oh wait.

So after all that, it boils down to...

Team OP = Reading a book written by Men, and believing every word without question.

Team evolution = Reading books written by people questioning everything we once believed in flat earth days.


I really want to go with team A, so I don't have to think. But then what happens if I was born somewhere else, I would believe another book. Does that mean I have to read them all or just read the one my parents gave me and stop there ? Have to think on that one. ....... But thinking is not allowed. MMmmmmmm ....

Team B means I have to keep reading new stuff my entire life. And be willing to change my ideas about everything I thought I knew. I am pretty sure my brain will get full doing that.


I think I am just going to go away, write my own book. Start my own movement. Seems easy enough. That guy L.Ron Hubbard did it ........ No end of people willing to believe just about anything.

If anyone wants to pre-order a copy and be a chosen one. Just send me a million dollars

1 free Tom Selleck for the first 10 orders.

A serious question for those who really know their scripture and are close to God .... no pretenders please.

Did God make us separate from the animals ?

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
A serious question for those who really know their scripture and are close to God .... no pretenders please.

Did God make us separate from the animals ?

according to a literal interpretation of the scripture, yes. he made the animals first, and then man.

Genesis 1:25
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

evolution does not contradict this. in fact "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind" appears to support both abiogenesis and evolution.

Where the waters get a bit muddied and open to interpretation is when He addresses the angels and says, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness". It is somewhat ambiguous as to whether He is referring to the physical creation of man as a species, in his own physical image, or the creation of the self aware, conscious human mind, in the likeness and image of his own mind. Occam's razor seems to suggest the latter, as if he was saying "Let Us create man in our literal physical image", one would have to assume God has a somewhat human-like physical appearance, and perhaps even that He created the primate family as a whole in a similar fashion, using 96% of the same DNA.

27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female, He created them.
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Here it says, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female, He created them." This again is a little ambiguous and could well be interpreted as God creating in man and women the aspects of self awareness, consciousness, morality, and responsibility, in His likeness. If what seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our share in God’s nature, with communicable attributes (life, personality, truth, wisdom, love, holiness, justice), then the time at which we evolved these traits could well be considered the moment we became "man" or "mankind". Obviously, there are no scientific definitions in the bible, so it is irrelevant to question whether homo-sapiens as a species evolved these traits spontaneously at the hand of God or gradually through His observed method of natural selection. The point is that we have these traits, and before we had them our consciousness was not much different to any other primate. The term "Man" in the bible does not carry the same definition as "homo-sapien", it refers to a member of humanity or mankind without scientific classification. The "creation of man" as described in the bible is not analogous to "the building of a brand new species from the ground up".

God's physical appearance/image is described in the bible thusly;
John 4:24 and so His appearance is not like anything we can describe.
Exodus 33:20 “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

This does not support God creating us in his physical image. In fact when God makes an appearance to people in the bible he is often described as manifesting through natural processes, like thunder, rainbows, or in dreams or visions. This supports the notion that we are not "created after God's physical appearance".

It is my own personal interpretation that God sparked abiogenesis through the natural physical laws we can observe, allowed life to evolve according to its "kind" through natural selection, and then chose man through natural selection to become enlightened with a self aware, conscious mind, in line with His own image; worthy of being a caretaker of Earth.

This interpretation does not contradict observed phenomenon, natural physical law or scientific theory, and it does not diminish God's divinity.

Science is the pursuit of examining and understanding the processes of the natural world. If one believes in God, and that everything we can examine is His creation, then by extension science is also the pursuit of examining and understanding the nature of God's works and the mind of God. It is not something that is a threat to God or spirituality, the only thing it is a threat to is fundamentalist religious dogma.

The choice posed by the op, "if it was christ or evolution, what would you choose?" is as obtuse as the question, "if it was bicycle or unicycle, which would you choose?"

i think i'll carry on walking, thankyou very much.

Ok. My second question.

Did God change our physical presence when we were tossed out of the Garden of Eden ? Or do we still look the same as then ?

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
Ok. My second question.

Did God change our physical presence when we were tossed out of the Garden of Eden ? Or do we still look the same as then ?

there is nothing in scripture to imply our physical presence changed. it is important to understand that story of adam and eve and the garden of eden is an allegory, not a documentary. the events described did not literally happen.

When Adam chose to eat the metaphorical fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he was essentially making the decision to think for himself and accept mortality in exchange for knowledge. Prior to eating the fruit, man had not demonstrated free will, or evolved to the point of consciousness we now enjoy. Adam and Eve are effectively an illustration of what was like to make a conscious decision for the first time in history.

God instructed Adam and Eve not to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for eating the fruit, as God stated; “on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die" (Genesis, 2:17).

Adam and Eve were, as far as they could comprehend as examples of a couple of the first few "people" on the planet, immortal. They had not much understanding of life and death, time, action and reaction, choice and consequence. Up until they made the choice to do something new, something creative, something original, they were nothing more than primates. By disobeying God they effectively fell from the grace of primal ignorance and became aware that they had the ability to make decisions, and that things they did had repercussions and consequences. Being "Cast out of Eden to the mortal world of the Earth", is analogous to "Discovering their place in the world as beings with the ability to differentiate between the world and themselves and their actions from the mechanisms of the world".

The story of the Garden of Eden is all about man evolving to a state of independent self awareness. The transition from the animal to the personal, if you will. Adam and Eve instinctively felt they should not eat the fruit of the tree, they had never eaten it before, a little voice inside them said "don't do it", but their curiosity lead them to do it anyway, and they became aware that they were independent of the world around them. They learned they had the ability to suppress their natural instinct. They started to notice that everything they did had an effect beyond the action itself. They started to notice that things live and die, and they became aware of the fact that their own decisions could mean the difference between life and death for themselves.

I think our physical appearance today is probably pretty much the same as these hypothetical early humans. If anything changed, it was that they started to notice that they appeared to age and a change of appearance occurred over time.

Ok so if that is true.

If it was Gods intention for us to be above the animals and command over them from day one. And he could make us in any image he wanted. Why did he not give us a unique physical structure.

Why do we share so many similar body parts to animals. Why do we look like all primates ? Why did he specifically choose primates as a template for us, after he made them.

Why are we not our own obviously separate species.

Serious question. Really.

It personally feels like a bit of a set up by God.

If he made us look like primates. And gave us consciousness / self awareness. Would it not be a given we would eventually ask ourselves if we were not related in some way.

Leading to our origins search and apparently dooming us.

I mean the Devil did not have the power to make us in such a close image. So he is out of this little temptation.

And why was knowledge the enemy of Man and his relationship with God As I cant see God ever operating out of fear.


But I could see the Devil operating out of fear and asking his followers to not ask questions. In fact all the most evil people I have ever meet use brainwashing / intimidation techniques to control people. Don't ask questions is their motto.

If you flip the script, it makes more sense.

God says knowledge good. Omnipotent God has no use for a dumb pet.

Devil only has deception left to work with. Which fails under scrutiny. He needs ignorance to win.

It might be why Jesus favored promoting prayer and asking God questions directly. Then imprinting the answer directly onto the heart.

So no middle man to slip in deception.