|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > The Official Evolution vs Creation thread for 24 and PMH. |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member 
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: Pmh thinks dinosaurs and humans were together on the Ark! What if they existed at the same time, and what if Noah only took baby dinosaurs? The book af Job describes something that sounds like a dinosaur.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. I stand by my passed comments. Man is distinct for all other creatures. While men and apes are similar (gross observation) there are millions of differences in the genetic make-up between the two. You claim the similarities mean common decent but you have no scientific or logical means of bridging the genetic cap that exist between man and animals or primates for that matter. Now you are making things up again. I don't claim that just similarities mean common decent. I claim that the scientific community is correct - that the mountain of overlapping evidence supports humans evolving from primates. Despite you saying I go by speculation, I go by the scientific community and you go by the speculation of the Bible. You go by religious-based notions, just like I said earlier in the thread despite you trying to not admit it. It's obvious - who are you kidding? I notice you did not just come out and say yes, all humans started with two people - Adam and Eve. Are you afraid to admit that this is your explanation for where humans came from? It's so speculative, which is why it is ridiculous for you to call me speculative when I go by the scientific community. Embedded in your positions is the presumption that the Bible (Adam and Eve) is literally true and fact regarding humans coming from those two individuals. 2. There is NOT universal scientific acceptance of the ameba to man theory. Your probably is you've been so brainwashed by the proponents of that theory is my guess is you've never read ONE book by a scientist that counters that theory. I never said amoeba to man - I spoke of primate to man. Science supports humans evolving from primates. The Bible does not. You are trying to cover up your religious-based positions for some reason. It was pretty funny for you to call me brainwashed when your entire view of where current species came from is shaped by Ark fables and ridiculously literally Adam & Even stories. Again, you go by highly speculative works like the Bible, I go by the scientific community. That's because, like I said earlier, your views are religious based, not scientific. 3. If by the Adam and Eve story you mean God created man distinct from the animals yes, I believe there is hard scientific evidence that points to man being the product of intelligent design and not the result of millions of genetic mutations and environmental happenstance. No, by the Adam & Eve story I mean the human race starting literally as Adam and Eve, the first two people. That is your speculative and religious-based position, not mine. 4. As far as scientific evidence AGAINST small evolutionary changes being the process by which we get from ameba to man you are wrong. There is an abundance of scientific evidence that relegates this theory a statistical impossible based on what we know about genetics, mutations, mutation rates, selective value of mutations, mutation survival in a population and the genetic differences between amebas, fish, birds other mammals and men. Like I said, there is a mountain of overlapping evidence supporting man evolving from primates (or land animals evolving from semi-aquatic animals) in gradual microevolutionary steps, and no scientific evidence negating all that evidence. I was disappointed - just more of you trying to pretend your views are not sourced in speculative, subjective, religion. I was hoping you would at least break out the "behemoth" passage to pretend dinosaurs were on the Ark with people.  Your views are religious-based, period. You believe that creatures from different continents magically got to an Ark and all species alive today are traced back to the Ark, right? That is the type of mechanism for tracing modern species that you buy into, correct? Yet you try to take issue with my claim that your views on evolution are due to religion?
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: 24HourNut wrote: What if, what if ... speculation and religious-based positioning ... not science. That is my point. Dating dinosaurs with humans on and after the Ark is absurd. This is all the result of trying to match archaic ignorance with science. The Bible authors didn't even know there were other continents. You could never fit reps of the tremendous amount of species on the entire planet, on an Ark. Why not just see the Bible as the embellishment it often is instead of trying to muddy science and make ridiculous things match up. I can't believe modern people think Noah had a pair of every dinosaur type on the Ark as well. The authors of the Bible had no idea things existed for millions of years and more species had gone extinct millions of years before them than they knew of in total. That is why there is this conflict between science and the Bible. That is why people like Pmh have to dismiss entire fields of science and the scientific community in general, and assert things like dinosaurs were alive with humans on an Ark and humans didn't evolve, but came from Adam and Eve after they chatted with a talking snake.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cynicalninja Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member  Smiling Shinobi
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: 24HourNut wrote: "The baby T-Rex's went in two by two, huzzah, huzzah !" I personally cannot see how any adult human being can believe that an old man built a boat big enough to house two of every species on the planet, that he was somehow able to aquire two of every animal and that when the boat was full he was somehow able to keep the peace between all these animals. For me belief in things like this is a clincher in whether or not I can take anything you say seriously.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cynicalninja Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member Smiling Shinobi
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: 24HourNut wrote: "The baby T-rex's went in two by two, huzzah, huzzah"!     
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The story of the Ark is largely universal amongst Me4diterranean peoples. No doubt it had some basis in truth in the early history of man. Many scientists point to the flooding of the low-lying fresh water lake that once was the Black Sea. We know that at one point the Bosporus was blocked by a natural dam, and it was overlapped or gave way flooding tens of thousands of square miles of land in an area where early man lived. Even if it was a slow filling up and layering over the fresh water levels with sea water such a huges geological event would leave traces in myth and fab le. Not a universal flooding in any case, but to the people who lived there and provide us with much of our earliest record of the paleo and neolithic stone age it would have appeared to be a world flood. Or perhaps it was a millenia flood of the Tigris and EUphrates. Deluge (d?l`yj), in the Bible, the overwhelming flood that covered the earth and destroyed every living thing except the family of Noah Noah (n?`?) [Heb.,=to rest], in the Bible, the builder of the ark . ..... Click the link for more information. and the creatures in his ark ark, in the Bible. 1 Boat of Noah , which he built at God's command to preserve his family and certain creatures from the Deluge . 2 Ark of the Covenant, the sacred wooden chest of the Hebrews, representative of God or identified with Him. ..... Click the link for more information. . Archaeology has yielded little trace of the biblical flood, but some oceanographers and geophysicists have speculated that the actual deluge occurred in the Black Sea region some 7,600 years ago, when rising sea levels in the Mediterranean (due to melting glaciers) flooded into the Black Sea and inundated the surrounding coast. Many archaeologists and historians, however, do not believe that the inundation of the ancient Black Sea coast is the origin of the flood story, regarding the periodic flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates as a more likely model for the tale. Flood stories resembling the biblical story are found in the folklore of many races—Native Americans, Fiji Islanders, and Australian aborigines. The earliest known of these stories is Sumerian, one form being found in the record of Berossus (3d cent. B.C.), another on a tablet of the Gilgamesh epic of at least 2000 B.C. See Deucalion Deucalion (dy ..... Click the link for more information. and Ur Ur (ûr), ancient city of Sumer, S Mesopotamia. The city is also known as Ur of the Chaldees. ..... Click the link for more information. . BibliographySee W. Ryan and W. Pitman, Noah's Flood (1999). http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/inundate Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: 24HourNut wrote:LOL, that pic is pretty damn funny! I'm sorry if I am one of the BILLIONS who doesn't think archaic text means Jesus was anything supernatural. We can't even be sure he really existed, so let's have some perspective. Didn't meant to upset you personally. Thanks for not having my head, though.  I am happy you aren't a muslim who would have my head. 
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Popeyesays wrote: The story of the Ark is largely universal amongst Me4diterranean peoples. It was likely a "local" flood but since they didn't know other continents existed they assumed it was the entire world. So there probably was some guy who made a boat and had a lot of animals with him, but it was just embellished along with so many other tales from the Bible. People have a hard time accepting this concept because then it opens the door to not everything being true in the Bible. That scares them, because they emotionally need that text to be true and from God. So we have religious fanatics like Pmh going around thinking (or wanting to believe) that all current species and people can be traced back to who and what was in that Ark - looking the other way at the cross-continent issue before and after the ark.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Now you are making things up again. I don't claim that just similarities mean common decent. I claim that the scientific community is correct -that the mountain of overlapping evidence supports humans evolving from primates." You ARE claiming comment decent! That is the essence of evolutionary theory. The scientific "community" is not in agreement regarding the origin of advanced life forms. There are numerous scientist that believe based on our current knowledge of genetics that advanced life forms cannot be the product of an evolutionary process of mutation errors and happenstance conditions in the environment. "You go by religious-based notions, just like I said earlier in the thread despite you trying to not admit it." Wrong, I go by what we know about genetics. "I notice you did not just come out and say yes, all humans started with two people - Adam and Eve." I'll spell it out for you, all humans started with two people. Those two people lived for hundreds of years and had numerous offspring. "I never said amoeba to man - I spoke of primate to man." Oh, so are you afraid to embrace this important tenet of Darwinian evolutionary theory. What's the problem? If man is the product of primate evolution why are you afraid to embrace the full scope of macroevolutionary theory? The same type of evolutionary process (mutation errors and natural selection) are the basis for both. Why are you backing away? Also, there is no way to calculate from what is written in the Bible when the special creation of Adam and Eve took place. The speculations about them living 6,000 years, 10,000 years or 20,000 years ago are exactly that, speculations. The same is true regarding the age of the Earth and the universe. "So we have religious fanatics like Pmh going around thinking (or wanting to believe) that all current species and people can be traced back to who and what was in that Ark." The Bible doesn't say every species of animal was on the Ark but rather various kinds of animals without any scientific explanation for what is meant by "kind". There is tremendous diversity among species of animals (cats, dogs, birds, etc.) and an evolutionary process (mutation and natural selection) has been shown to be responsible for providing this diversity. Relatively small genetic changes can produce these differences in size, coloration, etc. But the idea that you can bridge the genetic gap that exist between a fish and a dog via that same process has been demonstrated to be impossibility. Those genetic gaps cannot be bridged by that process. A beaver can build a dam to bridge the gap that exist between the banks of a small creek but the same building materials and process cannot be used to bridge the mouth of the Hudson River. The materials available and the limits in which you can apply those materials makes that feat impossible. And the beaver/dam analogy really doesn't express the complexity of the issue. A more accurate expression would be that somehow beavers began processing those basic materials into more and more complex geometric structures and via a process of trail and error discover the means to overcome the depth, width, height and weight limitations of the basic materials and process (adding a tremendous amount of new information) to build what amounts to the George Washington Bridge. You can talk to me until you're blue in the face about the rudimentary similarities between the two structures and that given a couple hundred million years they'd figure it out but believing that is irrational wishful thinking.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Free.man Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: 24HourNut wrote:LOL, that pic is pretty damn funny! Dear friend, That I got to see. I doubt you would know what to do with any head on a platitude except maybe yourself trying to enjoy the necromancy from such a lofty position hoisted on what remains of Frank-i.e.;-the-baptist. You find such a picture very distasteful, but, at the same time you think it is tasteful to codemn a whole group of people, Muslims, to the violence that you, yourself, threaten? Is this another attractive and valued Christianiam you in cist upon? cist 1 // n. A wicker receptacle used in ancient Rome for carrying sacred utensils in a procession. Just a guess; I don't think anyone will mistake you for a Muslim. I'd say: this is just another defining moment. Free.man
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Free.man wrote: muddawber wrote:24HourNut wrote:LOL, that pic is pretty damn funny! You need to get a life and a sense of humor, and quit thinking yourself better than everyone else. BTW, I'm not your friend, so please stop addressing me as such.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Now you are making things up again. I don't claim that just similarities mean common decent. I claim that the scientific community is correct -that the mountain of overlapping evidence supports humans evolving from primates." I am not claiming common decent based on "similarities." That was the point. I was basing it on a wide range of overlapping lines of evidence from the world-wide scientific community. "I notice you did not just come out and say yes, all humans started with two people - Adam and Eve." That is my point - your position as to where people came from is from the Bible, which is not scientific but totally speculative. It's ridiculous for you to say the scientific community (I match whatever they say) is being speculative when your explanation as to where people come from are Adam & Eve stories that included talking snakes and lifespans of hundreds of years. My point you took issue with is me saying your views on evolution are based upon religion. Here you are confirming that by saying humans did not evolve from previously existing species (primates) but started from whatever story the Bible put forth. "I never said amoeba to man - I spoke of primate to man." I never claimed to know how life on Earth started and branched out in detail, nor have I studied the path to the first life forms. In other words, I don't know the exact branch flow and bushed patterns of evolution that got to where we are. The amoeba might have been a real side branch to the main trunk that did lead to advanced forms of aquatic life. However, many other species and paths are clearer and supported by a lot of evidence - such as primate to man. As for macro evolution? I already said long strings of repeated micro evolutionary activity from niche exploitation and such is what all the science supports. Lots of gradual steps from primates to semi-human hominids, then to pre-humans, then to "cavemen," then to modern humans. No new information or genetic/scientific obstacle to lots of microevolutionary steps between primate and early hominids, Pmh. No new information or genetic obstacle to lots of microevolutionary steps between hominids and early cavemen, Pmh. No new information or genetic/scientific obstacle to lots of microevolutionary steps between cavemen and modern humans, Pmh. There is NO scientific evidence that says the mountain of overlapping lines of evidence for such progression is invalid. All the evidence POINTS to it. The Bible is NOT evidence, Pmh. It's archaic text with embellishments and some historical truths mixed in, like other literary works. Once you get over that you will stop saying silly unscientific things as you suggest my positions (which are purposefully the same as the general world-wide scientific community) are speculation. At least drop the Bible Adam & Eve BS before calling the scientific community speculative! It's beyond hypocritical! Also, there is no way to calculate from what is written in the Bible when the special creation of Adam and Eve took place. The speculations about them living 6,000 years, 10,000 years or 20,000 years ago are exactly that, speculations. The same is true regarding the age of the Earth and the universe. Your position includes dinosaurs getting off the Ark, does it not? That means you are saying that dinosaurs were roaming around only a few thousand years ago, correct!? "So we have religious fanatics like Pmh going around thinking (or wanting to believe) that all current species and people can be traced back to who and what was in that Ark." Correct me if I am wrong, but your position is that all existing species, including people, can be traced back to whatever was on the Ark, right? Since the flood took out everything not on the Ark, right? Once again, your position on the path of life development on Earth is religious-based. All of your positions are stemmed from a religious agenda of making everything conform or be compatible with the Bible. Why deny it? Once again, here is the point: I go by the world-wide scientific community's findings and positions, you go by archaic text. If the Bible said Eve gave birth to all the animals first then people, you would be here defending how animals all came from Eve's womb. I am glad you now see how I wasn't off about saying your positions on evolution are founded upon the BIBLE - speculative religion - NOT science. Trying to make science conform to the Bible is still religious-based views, Pmh. Who do you think you are kidding?
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Free.man Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: Free.man wrote:muddawber wrote:24HourNut wrote:LOL, that pic is pretty damn funny! Dear friend, Where was your sense of humor when you saw the picture? I believe you when you said you found it very distasteful. I 'm not suggesting you should even find the picture humorous. I would never post such a picture of any Founder of any religion, nor would any Muslim, that I know, post such a picture. I also find it very distasteful that, through some lame attempt at humor, you attacked a whole group of people(Muslims) who had nothing to do with posting that picture. Such hate mongering on your part is not funny. Moreover, this suggests to me that your Christian identity is dependent upon such hate mongering. I often find hate mongering clothed in humor. It isn't even cleaver. mongering: 1.a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way (usually used in combination): a gossipmonger. 2.Chiefly British. a dealer in or trader of a commodity (usually used in combination): fishmonger. –verb (used with object) 3.to sell; hawk. I'm just calling you on it. If you don't want to be seen as petty then stop being contemptible. Moreover, I don't have a need to prop up my life with hate speak, friend. A true friend would not allow another to engage in hate speak even if it may be required of some from your fellow religionists. Is this just Christianiam? It seems so. Free.man
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member  NON-PC!!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
