Evolution... a kids fairytale

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haxsaw
thats the best first hand evidence you have to prove that your ancestors were apes? wow, and I thought some christians had blind faith.


I know this is an old post, but I just wanted to add that our ancestors were not apes, we are apes. As in humans are great apes and are part of the Homindae family. Other modern apes are only our cousins, not our ancestors.

There was a common ancestor about 40 million years ago that diverged into two lineages, one becoming New World monkeys and the other becoming Old world monkeys and apes. 5 to 8 million years ago the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the other eventually becoming two chimpanzee species.

Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA are 94% identical today.
edit on 1-8-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
 


You wrote:

["Of course, if we were to form a grand unification theory that tied particle theory, quantam physics, gravity, it should also be expected to tie in life abiogenesis, evolution and even consciousness."]

One very interesting early effort (I believe it was Shroedinger), a booklet: "What is life", written late 1940es.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Re-reading OP I find, that this thread contains options for not only considering 'evolution', but also theological and scientific directions of cosmogony and cosmology.

So while 'evolution' definitely is a debate-point, it's not an exclusive such; and I find it disappointing, that the general universal creation (cosmological) debate appears to have died out. It's not aften that the competence (from both sides) manifested here in some contributors meet and 'get' anywhere.

Usually it's un-informed black/white positions being thrown back and forth, until the whole thing degrades to slogan-level.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


This is interesting, yes..
Got this from www.askmehelpdesk.com...


The Human vs Pig albumen genes are 83% identical (Identities = 1739/2091, Gaps = 80/2091 (3%)).
The Human vs Chimp albumen genes are 99% identical (Identities = 2119/2136, Gaps = 0/2136 (0%)).
The Chimp vs Pig albumen genes are 82% identical (Identities = 1668/2017, Gaps = 84/2017 (4%)).



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Here, have a loot:



(watch in image viewer for better geek experience)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by drakus
 


It's unfair to confuse creationists with facts.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
My two cents as a reply to:

'What strikes me funny is that evolution has all kinds holes and steps on it's own foot however the bible is the only doctrine that no one can find any contradicting aspects of it, it's very clear and in unity (what's remarkable that the book took thousands years by several writers to complete )but you refuse listen to it because why? "mystical creature" haha ok whatever floats your boat.'

As if I should believe in:
a murderer, a rapist, and:

Deuteronomy: All nations shall be terrorized by the followers of Yahweh. 2:25
no contradicting aspects here..

Genesis
• Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8

• "I will destroy ... both man and beast."
God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17

• "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy."
God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4

• "All flesh died that moved upon the earth."
God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23

• God sends a plague on the Pharaoh and his household because the Pharaoh believed Abram's lie. 12:17

• God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10

• Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6

• "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32

• Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8

• God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24

• Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26

• God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe's lie. 20:3-7

• Sarai tells Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands him to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. 21:10-14

• God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13

• Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10

• Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31

• "The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them." 35:5

• "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

• After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10

• After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24

• Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. 40:19

• God brought a seven year, "very greivous" famine on the whole earth for no apparent reason (except maybe to make Joseph wealthy). 41:25-32, 54

Exodus:
God wants to be remembered forever for the mass murder of little children. 10:2

These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated. 11:4-6 (see 12:29-30)

God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7

God explains to Moses that he intends to "smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. 12:12

After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29


Deuteronomy

"God ... shall fight for you." 1:30

"The hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were consumed."
God killed all the Israelite soldiers -- slowly. It took him 38 years to kill them all, but he finally got the job done. 2:14-16

"A land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time ... but the Lord destroyed them." 2:20

"The Lord destroyed them before them" -- the general treatment of the people who were supposedly displaced by the Israelites. 2:21-22

"I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle." 2:24

All nations shall be terrorized by the followers of Yahweh. 2:25

God hardened the heart of the king of Heshbon and so that he could have him and all of his people killed. 2:30

At God's instructions, the Israelites "utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones" leaving "none to remain." 2:33-36

The Israelites, with God's help, kill all the men, women, and children of every city. 3:3-6

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city." 3:6

Moses promises Joshua that God will massacre kings and kingdoms for him, too. 3:21

Nothing but friendship and love to be found.
edit on 3-8-2011 by infinitecuriosity because: spelling



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Wow, theres nothing contradictory in the Bible?



There is something that needs to be made clear

Faith = Taking something as truth, FOR NO GOOD REASON

Everything creationists list as 'needing faith' in regards to evolution, has DATA and EVIDENCE to back it up

Religious faith.......................has none of the above

Thats why its called 'Faith' (as you so regularly remind everyone)

Faith is not a virtue, its being naive, being a sucker, being gullible, its being willing to accept any claim made, no questions asked. These are not good traits...........and should not be encouraged.

edit on 4-8-2011 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Also one other remark: Quoting again:

Firstly, I know you probably weren’t talking to me specifically but I’ll just add I’m not a Christian, and what I think you meant to say was, the bible takes faith and those who follow it will admit this, while science has been proven wrong on many occasions and corrects itself as if it was never wrong, but we understand what you’re trying to get at. I would’ve loved to see the faces of the atheist wannabe scientists back in the day when they learnt the world wasn’t flat.

It were our scientists who found out the earth was a sphere. Think before you write more careful next time, when you make a statement like this. As it was the people who wrote the bible who told us the earth was a flat disk. Please do read the good book carefully before making incorrect statements. It was Aristotel (322 bc) who gave us proof the earth was round.
edit on 5-8-2011 by infinitecuriosity because: no reason given



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by samaka
 


I agree man...

I suppose its just ironic that evolution comes from experiments, examination and theory... And creationism comes from... books....


My question is, why can't evolution and a creator exist simultaneously?




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



My question is, why can't evolution and a creator exist simultaneously?


It's a possibility.

Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by samaka
 


I agree man...

I suppose its just ironic that evolution comes from experiments, examination and theory... And creationism comes from... books....


My question is, why can't evolution and a creator exist simultaneously?



It ABSOLUTELY can, if you believe in some "creator" but understand that things change and when *life* changes it does it in a peculiar (and describable) way, you're a-ok for me.

Because Evolution is about the... well, evolution of lifeforms.
It doesn't say ANYTHING about the origin of life.
If only bible-munchers would get that simple fact and stop PISSING ME OFF!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by drakus
 


It's unfair to confuse creationists with facts.


LFMAO-xden



I know, i'm being harsh, I just can't get how someone doesn't SEE evolution all around...
It is a so-so-simple fact.... And it's not just life...



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by drakus

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by drakus
 


It's unfair to confuse creationists with facts.


LFMAO-xden



I know, i'm being harsh, I just can't get how someone doesn't SEE evolution all around...
It is a so-so-simple fact.... And it's not just life...


My initial comment was an effort of humour to point out the not only peculiar 'answers' coming from theist directions, but also the great confusion which often is manifested by some theists, concerning position, systematic methodology, philosophy and test-'tools'.

There's some vague, even non-existing bounderies, between (what self-defined is called) facts, and on the other hand faith and fantasy; resulting in a situation without 'true colours', where semantic gymnastics tries to make up for ignorance or calculated scamming.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
Firstly I would like to tell you a brief detail of my background as it helped me to this conclusion. I am a computer programmer, I've been doing it for 13 years and it was something I always wanted to do as a kid as it gave me the feeling of being a "God" because I can create many things with programming (mainly game programing). I understand the complexities of programming and the amount of logic it requires to actually program as something as simple as a clock radio. Thinking about the origins of life and the universe and all of the complexties, variables, constants and logic that runs the universe and I understand that just altering a fraction of a whole number (.0000001) could throw everything off course and it's very much like this in game programming. In game programming, you have variables that rely on other variables so by altering one you could be altering many variables which got me into thinking how perfect all these variables that run universe really are especially the human body and the earth.

Faith in science leaves me unfulfilling,


As a sChristian who does believe in Evolution I can tell you, one doesn't have faith in science. It doesn't require faith.



To believe in evolution you must require faith and I mean alot of faith.

No, not a bit.



Evolutionist have faith in mere coincidences and not just 1 coincidence but we are talking about trillions (most likely alot more than that) coincidences and each coincidence are harbored by trillions of variables that could alter the outcome such as the big bang theory.


AT ALL.


Ok then lets just say the earth and humans are just lucky and everything just happened and the variables were perfect by chance. But the origin life dives much deeper than that.



I program the constants myself however my question is who programmed the constants that govern the universe such as the law of physics?


Again, the Theory of Evolution doesn't cover the creation of the universe or Start/Creation of Life on Earth.
Since you are promoting these lies as facts why should we believe anything you say?


Even if evolution occured, who programmed evolution?


Either God or No one. Or maybe it was the Malakim(Virtues)?


The more I think about evolution the more it seems it's just a fairytale we teach kids in school.


Well it's clear that you don't know what the Theory of Evolution is about. Like, at all.
So why should we care what you think about it?
Seriously, It's clear you know nothing about it, so why SHOULD your ignorance[ or deliberate lie? ]based opinion carry any weight?
No offense, but why mention your profession at all?
You aren't a biologist. YOu aren't even a scientist.
So it's not like it adds any weight to your confused[or deceitful?] posts...
And, again no offense, it's clear that you don't understand Scientific Theory at all.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by drakus
Here, have a loot:



(watch in image viewer for better geek experience)


There's a few things missing from that evolution diagram, mainly a big blob of nothingness in the middle saying "NOTHING OR GOD". The rest of the diagram I find pretty funny as well.

I wonder what the ape'eists are gong to do when the current apes evolve and want to start pitching tents, fighting humans for land, and forming their own governements, oh that's right we will have evovled into aliens or something by then right. Seriously just a massive LOL @ evolution in it's entirety, and they say science is based on observation, yeah right, when was the last time you saw something come from nothing. Evolution in its entirety is not science its' a faith based belief system whether they like it or not.
edit on 8-8-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Haxsaw
 


You wrote:

["There's a few things missing from that evolution diagram, mainly a big blob of nothingness in the middle saying "NOTHING OR GOD". The rest of the diagram I find pretty funny as well."]

A FEW things missing in science, makes science far more attractive and reasonable than creationism where practically EVERYTHING is missing (except a big circle-argument).

That the missing part you refer to even isn't a scientific subject, but belongs to philosophy/epistemology only makes such a kind of argumentation as you use irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Haxsaw
 


You wrote:

["There's a few things missing from that evolution diagram, mainly a big blob of nothingness in the middle saying "NOTHING OR GOD". The rest of the diagram I find pretty funny as well."]

A FEW things missing in science, makes science far more attractive and reasonable than creationism where practically EVERYTHING is missing (except a big circle-argument).

That the missing part you refer to even isn't a scientific subject, but belongs to philosophy/epistemology only makes such a kind of argumentation as you use irrelevant.




Nope, it's far from irrelevant, in fact on the contrary science will never be able to prove where everything came from and it will always remain as a nothingness as the source, so there is no real argument in terms of creation V science. This fact aside, as it stands at the moment concentrating on the theories of evolution alone we can see it takes faith to believe you came from the sun(accretion disc) or even a simple cell and who knows what before that, science certianly doesnt know, call it science if you want, but evolution in it's entirety will always remain a faith based sytem. Science is one thing, brining faith into science is another, and that is where evolution as a total theory sits, smack bang under faith. I dont think anyone is stupid enough to deny biological adaptations, but when you extend that theory into massive stretches of imagination like all living things have come from a simple cell or an accretion disc around the sun, well that comes under philosophy regardless of whether it's believers are too arrogant to admit it or not. So true science can live side by side with intelligent design, but calling faith based systems(which clearly includes evolution as a complete theory) 'science' is just an insult to mankind, because as mentioned it's not really science at all its more conjecture and philosophy that cant be directly observed.
edit on 8-8-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Haxsaw
 


You wrote:

["Nope, it's far from irrelevant, in fact on the contrary science will never be able to prove where everything came from and it will always remain as a nothingness as the source, so there is no real argument in terms of creation V science."]

That's what I said also. It's a philosophical question of the epistemological value of science.

Quote: ["this fact aside, as it stands at the moment concentrating on the theories of evolution alone we can see it takes faith to believe you came from the sun(accretion disc) or even a simple cell and who knows what before that, science certianly doesnt, call it science if you want, but evolution in it's entirety will always remain a faith based sytem."]

Can you make up your mind, please. Are we, or are we not, debating the epistemological value of science, or are you just following a direction of: "Is, isn't, is, isn't" with competing systems representing black/white positions.

Quote: ["Science is one thing, brining faith into science"]

What on earth are you talking about? Who has brought faith into science?

Quote: ["and that is where evolution as a total theory sits, smack bang under faith, I dont think anyone is stupid enough to deny biological adaptations, but when you extend that theory into massive stretches of imagination like all living things have come from a simple cell or even an accretion disc around the sun,"]

Why are you addressing biology or geology to me? Can we stay with the area I already have stated as inside my competence?

Quote: ["So true science with faith can live side by side with intelligent design, but science as a faith(which clealry includes evolution as a complete theory) is just an insult to man kind, because as mentioned it's not really science at all its more conjecture and philosophy that cant be directly observed."]

I prefer facts, logic, philosophy. Semantic gymnastics have no value. Philosophy is only one part of science, as when science is using logic. Scientific theories are scientific, not philosophical.

It's basically a question of having the various positions clearly outlined and defined. Not using a hotch-potch of different perspectives substituting for each other.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Your head seems to be spinning. Let me try and eleborate or simply re-word what I've said so you can see my position.

Evolution in it's ENTIRETY is considered a scientific theory, I beg to differ, as you said scientific theories are not meant to contain philosophy, yet anything that cannot be observed(eg. man coming from a simple cell or from an accretion disk around the sun for that matter, which is included in evolution as a total theory) belongs in philosophy, not science. I mentioned biological adaptations as certain biological apaptations can clearly be observed and are a portion of the evolution theory that do belong in science, but extending the theory of evolution to something that cannot be observed can only be put under philosophy as it requires faith to swallow. Hopefully that helps you get a bit of a grasp on what I've said previously.

edit on 8-8-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join