AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism

1486 247591
Freon
offline
Freon
24 posts
Nomad

im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism

  • 1,486 Replies
destruction101
offline
destruction101
115 posts
Nomad

Ok I fully belive In Creationism by God. But people ask your self what if the bible is merly a cryptic message Evolutionism Could be how god created the earh maybe a billion years could be equil to a day. Do you see what I am saying? You can not chose between Evolutionism or creationism beacuse they are one.

akqpars
offline
akqpars
190 posts
Nomad

You can not chose between Evolutionism or creationism beacuse they are one.

Some creationist are at the edge of denial because of their arrogance and insist to not to have progress neither on their idelogy nor accepting facts. As for mage, he just wants to disprove creation however .
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,492 posts
Shepherd

Last I heard they had a higher pitched voice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010710_neanderthal.shtml


It's a little dated, but I couldn't find much else on the pitch. Says deep. I don't think it matters though.

Like I said they were to specialized for the environment they were in. Once that started changing the more adaptable group (us) was able to take over.


Relatively equal brain capacity, use of tools, extra muscle mass, and a humanlike structure doesn't show any sort of specialization for one's environment.
We, too, evolved out of Africa, how are we so generalized and the Neaderthals not?
They aren't cacti that can get flooded by a bunch of water, I don't see any proof of their being different whatsoever.

We have the prenatal tail because we still have the genes for making a tail, the same as how chickens still have the genes for making teeth.


I'm pretty sure that was spina bifada [Not saying the other picture isn't either, I'm saying they both are]. I searched up the thing about a human tail, found those exact two pictures, and the website that I was viewing said it was a rare case of spina bifada. I have yet to hear of someone to grow an actual tail. The second picture you are showing is just the normal picture of the condition.
Also, if we've lost our tail but nearly no other monkey has in the way we have -- is that not proof of some sort of divine push to get us out of having one?
Also, I'm not saying a chicken might not have come from something chickeny, I'm arguing on the point that humans didn't just go from monkey to man.

No they don't, and when we do have competing groups the one that isn't as well adapted goes usually goes extinct.


Yes there are, there isn't one type of chimpanzee, monkey, or ape, that rules in its particular forest. There are many, each going through different possible phases of evolution, filled with many subspecies or species.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

I thought, evolving meant to becoming in a better state,to put it lightly. Or you may claim that it is not a downgrade because you seem to believe we are apes.


No it doesn't necessarily mean to become better. In simplest terms evolution is decent with modification. And yes by the definition of what a primate is, we are primates.

As you know, all different species of monkeys have their habitats and never to leave there, and no ice age within too much time to talk about certain environmental changes or climate changes because we caused it lately.


I'm not sure what your trying to get at here.

So actually probability of forming these species in a healhy form... You must call "O' my lord" to the entrophy.


Entrophy increases in an isolated system. That's not what we are dealing with when it comes to evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

Mage it is obvious the difference between diamond and coal. You must know also about the reptile humans around the world, which does not make us relatives with reptiles.


You do realize what your presenting has nothing to do with reptilian genetics right? That's a harlequin baby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin-type_ichthyosis

But anyway if we go far enough back yes we do share an ancestry with reptiles.

Today, there are tribes live in stone age to the medieval and modern age. There is no sign of transition by actual means which is between species, besides of lazy butt humans causing troubles to themelves by playing with genomes of food, animals, plants etc. or their irreponsible behaviours against their body, in the modern age.


For us to see the transitions clearly we have to look at the fossil record. Think of them like snap shots in time. One way to think of transitional forms is in the way we age. If you look in the mirror today and look again tomorrow or next week your not likely to notice much of any change to your self. But what if you took a photo of your self now and compared it to the way you look several years from now? You will likely notice differences.
Your looking at the human race like you would see yourself in the mirror from day to day, ignoring the fossil (snapshots) of our past.

Either this claim is too weak or i dont get your point.


neanderthal was well suited for the environment in which they lived in. When that started to change they couldn't adapt like we could so they died out. What's so hard to understand?

Ok I fully belive In Creationism by God.


What's there to believe?
This?
Creationist Whoppers
These maybe?
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
Or how about any of these claims that are touched on?
The 1st Falsehood of creationism: "evolution = atheism" (Video)
The 2nd foundational falsehood of creationism: scriptures are the "Word of God" (Video)
The 3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: human interpretation = absolute truth (Video)
The 4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: belief = knowledge (Video)
The 5th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution-ism" (part I) "Evolution = the religion of atheism" (Video)
The 6th falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution-ism" (Part II) "Evolution must explain the origin of life, the universe, and everything." (Video)
The 7th foundational falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution is random." (Video)
The 8th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Mutations are rare, harmful decreases in genetic information." (Video)
The 9th falsehood of Creationism: "No transitional species have ever been found." (Video)
The 10th falsehood of creationism: "The evolutionary âtree of lifeâ is nowhere implied either in the fossil record, nor in any aspect of biology." (Video)
The 11th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Macroevolution has never been observed." (Video)
The 12th falsehood of Creationism: "Creation science" (Video)
The 13th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution is a fraud!" (Video)
The 14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part 1 (Video)
The 14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part II (Video)
The 15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been proved. Itâs still just a theory, not a fact." Part 1 (Video)
The 15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been proved. Itâs still just a theory, not a fact." Part II (Video)

But people ask your self what if the bible is merly a cryptic message Evolutionism Could be how god created the earh maybe a billion years could be equil to a day.


As I've already pointed out the Biblical claims do not fit the evidence we have.

You can not chose between Evolutionism or creationism beacuse they are one.


Not they aren't There is nothing in evolution making claims of divinity at work. Also it's not evolitionISM it's a theory not a belief.

As for mage, he just wants to disprove creation however .


That's because it's supported by a pack of lies. (see above for just a few examples)

It's a little dated, but I couldn't find much else on the pitch. Says deep. I don't think it matters though.


Yes it is dated, here's the more recent data.
High-pitched voice theory - Neanderthal - BBC science

Relatively equal brain capacity, use of tools, extra muscle mass, and a humanlike structure doesn't show any sort of specialization for one's environment.
We, too, evolved out of Africa, how are we so generalized and the Neaderthals not?
They aren't cacti that can get flooded by a bunch of water, I don't see any proof of their being different whatsoever.


there may have been a number of things that contributed to there demise. I find the climate change to be the most likely one though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses

What are you talking about with flooding?

I have yet to hear of someone to grow an actual tail.


Here's a functional tail.
Human Tail 2 ( caudal appendage )

Here's an x-ray of a true human tail.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/tail.jpg

Also, I'm not saying a chicken might not have come from something chickeny, I'm arguing on the point that humans didn't just go from monkey to man.


It wasn't that sudden as you seem to imply. I'm saying we descended from monkeys and that relationship is very close. I'm not saying a monkey gave birth to a human.

Yes there are, there isn't one type of chimpanzee, monkey, or ape, that rules in its particular forest. There are many, each going through different possible phases of evolution, filled with many subspecies or species.


You can have multiple species in the same area and still not have them competing for the same ecological niche. The process can also take a very long time. such as with us and neanderthal, which we lived along side for several thousand years.
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,492 posts
Shepherd

Here's a functional tail.


I know you like youtube, but I've seen other examples that look the same and many sources keep telling me it is spina bifada. If there really isn't any news article that proves an actual tail as a genetic mutation/defect/issue that actually grew out of the vestigial bone, then I won't really believe any of it [Because like, come on, if someone had a legit tale, it'd be all over the news]

I'm not saying a monkey gave birth to a human.


Neither am I, but what I do know of evolution is that it takes a load of time. I find it highly improbable that no other 'almost human' species made it this far, and that we don't have many transitional examples.

such as with us and neanderthal, which we lived along side for several thousand years.

If this is so true, then why were modern Humans so much more adapted to... everywhere? Why had we not specialized ourselves to Africa? It is puzzling.

Also, climate change is not the only theory, and even if it is, it doesn't make much sense. Their fossils are found far away enough to the east as the Altai Mts. and Ukraine, and deep into Spain by Africa in areas like Gebraltar, along with a few Isreali discoveries. I'm pretty sure climate change didn't shoot all of them in the face when they inhabited such a range.
They left the record 25,000 years ago.
The earliest human remains in Europe are of 20-30,000 years ago?
It doesn't look like we partied with them that long.

Yes it is dated, here's the more recent data.

Sorry

What are you talking about with flooding?


I... don't know. I might have been typing something, got distracted, and then figured I was done with it?


I'm not saying I deny the existence of Neanderthals, I just feel that out success was a bit guided.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

I know you like youtube, but I've seen other examples that look the same and many sources keep telling me it is spina bifada.


I just showed you an x-ray of one!

Neither am I, but what I do know of evolution is that it takes a load of time. I find it highly improbable that no other 'almost human' species made it this far,


That's because we out competed everything else. Hell we pretty much dominate everything around us.

and that we don't have many transitional examples.


We have loads of transitional forms. So much so that we can't even sort them all out in determining whether if something can actually be regarded as a new species or just a slight evolutionary step for a pre-established species. In other words the fossil record fro humans is pretty much complete.

If this is so true, then why were modern Humans so much more adapted to... everywhere? Why had we not specialized ourselves to Africa? It is puzzling.


Just a guess on my part but perhaps it had to do with our migratory habits. or like the roach we got the luck of the draw in genetics (which is a random variable in evolution)

Also, climate change is not the only theory, and even if it is, it doesn't make much sense. Their fossils are found far away enough to the east as the Altai Mts. and Ukraine, and deep into Spain by Africa in areas like Gebraltar, along with a few Isreali discoveries. I'm pretty sure climate change didn't shoot all of them in the face when they inhabited such a range.


Actually it still does considering we are dealing with ice age climates, even into those areas.

They left the record 25,000 years ago.
The earliest human remains in Europe are of 20-30,000 years ago?
It doesn't look like we partied with them that long.


At most 5,000 years by that. That's a pretty good chunk of time.

I'm not saying I deny the existence of Neanderthals, I just feel that out success was a bit guided.


Of course our success was guided. It just wasn't divinely guided.

This is how evolution works, no god required.
Natural Selection: How Evolution Works
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
akqpars
offline
akqpars
190 posts
Nomad

But anyway if we go far enough back yes we do share an ancestry with reptiles.


So does this mean, if we go back far enough our fundemental material is from soil.

neanderthal was well suited for the environment in which they lived in. When that started to change they couldn't adapt like we could so they died out. What's so hard to understand?


They must have encircled the world like we do now,and a cleverer and stronger branch must not extinct so easy after coping with much more hazardous obstacles and creatures.

That's because it's supported by a pack of lies.

I am sure you would interpret it better than the scavengers abusing this system. Since no deity didnt intervened the system but us.

Here's an x-ray of a true human tail.


That happened to my team mate after having a football injury from hit by a facemask direct to the back.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

So does this mean, if we go back far enough our fundemental material is from soil.


The materials that make us up are water, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur.

Since I see what your trying to imply they were capable of forming organic compounds without a deities intervention, so your god is still useless here. Anyway this is getting off the topic of evolution and on to the topic of abiogenesis.


They must have encircled the world like we do now,and a cleverer and stronger branch must not extinct so easy after coping with much more hazardous obstacles and creatures.


As far as I know they were fairly regional, only extending from Europe to central Asia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png

That happened to my team mate after having a football injury from hit by a facemask direct to the back.


Your teammate grew extra vertebrae after being hit in the back? Well I guess I shouldn't be to surprised you are also claiming you have a magic talisman that can heal skin disease and make you bullet proof.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,132 posts
Jester

Why had we not specialized ourselves to Africa?


humans did. in africa you only see people whit a black skin.
they have this black skin to prevent them from sun damage. on the northern half we don't need that kinda protection from the sun. and so we are not black. the black skin is genetically determined. and so you could see it as evolution.
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,492 posts
Shepherd

humans did. in africa you only see people whit a black skin.


That isn't any kind of evolutionary trait that would be considered as specialization. Not to mention, this would imply that the first human European settlers to enter Eurasia were black, and therefore less suited to defeat the whiter Neanderthals.

As far as I know they were fairly regional, only extending from Europe to central Asia.


Look at your map. Look at this. It's a little bigger. [Ice age climate map]
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_H6XW_a4TYus/SZINifNrDHI/AAAAAAAAAPI/ZRHisRDDCmI/s1600-h/Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

The range you are depicting finds some good spots for an apex predator.

At most 5,000 years by that. That's a pretty good chunk of time.


To eliminate an entire human-like species?

Of course our success was guided. It just wasn't divinely guided.


Yet you say it could have been luck of the draw.
Not to mention, the Cockroach isn't the only critter that crawls on every continent of the Earth. Also, as lucky as it may be, it isn't good enough to dominate its environment.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

That isn't any kind of evolutionary trait that would be considered as specialization. Not to mention, this would imply that the first human European settlers to enter Eurasia were black, and therefore less suited to defeat the whiter Neanderthals.


Us moving into a colder environment and developing lighter skin isn't specialization? That's exactly what we see with virtually every species moving from a warmer to cooler environment.

The range you are depicting finds some good spots for an apex predator.


What's your point?

Yet you say it could have been luck of the draw.
Not to mention, the Cockroach isn't the only critter that crawls on every continent of the Earth. Also, as lucky as it may be, it isn't good enough to dominate its environment.


There are aspects of evolution that are random, such as genetic drift. However it's not entirely random, there are aspects that are not random that would also have played a role such as natural selection. These are the that guide evolution, not a deity.

You seem to have missed the point I was making with the roach. it doesn't have to dominate it's environment, (though there are cases where it does) it just has to be adaptable enough to survive in a large variety of environments. This allows it to survive if the environment changes. So if a group of roaches were to move into an environment where it competes for the same ecological niche as another species that is specialized for that environment and the environment goes through a drastic change, the new group of roaches that are less specialized but more adaptable will be the more likely to survive.


Trying to add god into the processes of evolution is like trying to say god controls the weather. We can explain how that cloud formed, how the wind currents moved it how the lightning formed and what causes the thunder sound after. But all that's just how god controls the weather.
We remove god from that equation we will still see all of those things take place. So adding god becomes a completely useless aspect. Yes their are random variables in the formation and activity of thunder clouds, but this just means "we don't know". So inserting god into those aspects your making a god of the gaps argument where you claim to know something you don't.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Does this sound at all familiar to anyone else?
ChattiestSpike2 Ministries Podcast - Question Gravity

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,556 posts
Jester

Mage, that video is great, right up there with Context.

ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,435 posts
Nomad

I'm a man of options, i believe in both. Is it not possible that whatever higher power, let's call him "God" for simplicity's sake (lulz), decided to create the universe, put the necessary tools in it to make stuff happen, and then just sit back and relax, watching the universe change and whatnot? Isn't it possible that one outcome of this placement of building blocks the theory of evolution?

-Chillz

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

I'm a man of options, i believe in both. Is it not possible that whatever higher power, let's call him "God" for simplicity's sake (lulz), decided to create the universe, put the necessary tools in it to make stuff happen, and then just sit back and relax, watching the universe change and whatnot? Isn't it possible that one outcome of this placement of building blocks the theory of evolution?


Your still left with the issues I've already mentioned about inserting god into the equation.
Showing 1426-1440 of 1486