Can't Believe in Human Evolution From Chimps

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

as for creationists? there are logical arguments for god, and infinitely more empiracle evidence for jesus being who he claims to be than evolution has for any of its claims.

There's barely even evidence enough for scholars to make the claim Jesus even existed and there is no evidence whatsoever for him being an actual divine being.

Evolution has been directly observed, as I stated in my above post we have actually observed speciation. If direct scientific observation is not enough what about the transistional fossils in the fossil record? It has further been supported by behavioral and genetic evidence in that animals who have common ancestry behave in much the same ways. For instance chimps wage war against rival bands and even fashion crude spears. If behavior weren't enough there is the genetic and fossil evidence to back it up. All the evidence points toward evolution.

There is no evidence whatsoever for magical creation as the Bible (and many other ancient texts) depicts and magical creation is hardly an answer for how everything got the way it was. Religion answers none of the questions that are paramount to understanding how life got this way.

All the evidence points to evolution, if there is a God than evolution was his means of developing life, not magic and crafting people out of ribs.

Don't just take my word for it, research it yourself but do so without using religiously biased sources.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Lol for posting a Catholic source for his argument. Also, evolutionist concoct ape bones and human bones to prove their theory which have been debunked. What makes you think they don't fudge their reports to do the same and keep their theory going? Science isn't exactly honest in its approach to provide evidence. The same can be said about religion but then again you did quote a Catholic source.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

"you can't argue with the evidence" one day, and the next "we're still discovering new things every day!"

How are those statements at odds? Science is a fluid process, conclusions are reached based on evidence and until other evidence overturns a conclusion than what is the use arguing with it? Science is not religious dogma, with new evidence come new questions and new answers.

By the way your article states that it might have been birds that evolved into dinosaurs, "might have been" is the key word there. It has not been debunked as you claim, merely new fossil evidence has raised new questions, that's hardly a bad thing. Its an interesting article but all it proves to me is that the scientific process is working and that this new idea, of dinosaurs and birds co-emerging, is an interesting one and may be gaining ground. If more evidence is found it may become the prevailing theory so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Either way dinosaurs and birds are still evolutionarily related even if we haven't ironed out all the details yet.

reply to post by novastrike81


You are officially a troll.

Not a Catholic source genius. Did you even watch the video?

The video was made by a science student who lives in Texas, his youtube alias is Aron Ra. The Pope's image is used in the video and was, therefore, made the still image for the video. He points out the inherent flaws in the creationist argument and gives supporting evidence for Evolution in a series of 15 videos detailing the fundamental flaws of creationism.

Also, evolutionist concoct ape bones and human bones to prove their theory which have been debunked

Nebraska man, the infamous peccary tooth incident.

People are allowed to make mistakes you know and any and all such forgeries and hoaxes were summarily debunked by other scientists and laid to rest. No hoax bone or fossil evidence is used to hold up modern evolutionary theory.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Flock of Dodos -- another great "intelligent design" documentary expose:

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

You are officially a troll.

Not a Catholic source genius. Did you even watch the video?

The video was made by a science student who lives in Texas, his youtube alias is Aron Ra. The Pope's image is used in the video and was, therefore, made the still image for the video. He points out the inherent flaws in the creationist argument and gives supporting evidence for Evolution in a series of 15 videos detailing the fundamental flaws of creationism.

He used the Pope because the Pope is the one who decided to agree with you evolutionists that we may have evolved from apes. Please stop spewing garbage you clearly know nothing about. The Pope is far from anyone credible religious source since they don't even follow the Bible truthfully. Stop being a jackass and presuming you know who I am. I don't need to watch the video to figure out he was supporting evolution.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


or, it could just as easily mean that the back portion of the brain was under developed, and the front got extra room because of this. there is no evidence to point either way.

reply to post by novastrike81


I know why he used the Pope, I've seen the video.

I'm well aware that the Pope is no one to get religious advice from, or life advice for that matter. I have no affinity for the Pope. His point was that MOST Christians accept the evidence for evolution and adapt their religious beliefs accordingly instead of clinging to empty doctrines for which there is no supporting evidence and putting forth bronze age mysticism as some sort of competitor against facts supported by evidence.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

I know why he used the Pope, I've seen the video.

I'm well aware that the Pope is no one to get religious advice from, or life advice for that matter. I have no affinity for the Pope. His point was that MOST Christians accept the evidence for evolution and adapt their religious beliefs accordingly instead of clinging to empty doctrines for which there is no supporting evidence and putting forth bronze age mysticism as some sort of competitor against facts supported by evidence.

You're correct most Christians do accept evolution. I think you're referring to Theistic-evolution. I accept evolution too, just not the one where God just let it happen. Everything is spelled out in the Bible just some people refuse to read it or don't understand what they are reading. I think the same goes for science. Some read/study it and don't understand it which is why you see some evolutionists say we evolved from apes and some saying we didn't evolve from apes.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

I know why he used the Pope, I've seen the video.

I'm well aware that the Pope is no one to get religious advice from, or life advice for that matter. I have no affinity for the Pope. His point was that MOST Christians accept the evidence for evolution and adapt their religious beliefs accordingly instead of clinging to empty doctrines for which there is no supporting evidence and putting forth bronze age mysticism as some sort of competitor against facts supported by evidence.

You're correct most Christians do accept evolution. I think you're referring to Theistic-evolution. I accept evolution too, just not the one where God just let it happen. Everything is spelled out in the Bible just some people refuse to read it or don't understand what they are reading. I think the same goes for science. Some read/study it and don't understand it which is why you see some evolutionists say we evolved from apes and some saying we didn't evolve from apes. No one wants to be wrong so there is constant war over who is right and who is wrong.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

"you can't argue with the evidence" one day, and the next "we're still discovering new things every day!"

How are those statements at odds? Science is a fluid process, conclusions are reached based on evidence and until other evidence overturns a conclusion than what is the use arguing with it? Science is not religious dogma, with new evidence come new questions and new answers.

By the way your article states that it might have been birds that evolved into dinosaurs, "might have been" is the key word there. It has not been debunked as you claim, merely new fossil evidence has raised new questions, that's hardly a bad thing. Its an interesting article but all it proves to me is that the scientific process is working and that this new idea, of dinosaurs and birds co-emerging, is an interesting one and may be gaining ground. If more evidence is found it may become the prevailing theory so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Either way dinosaurs and birds are still evolutionarily related even if we haven't ironed out all the details yet.

the problem is that you claim evolution as a fact based on evidence. yet everything evolution holds to be fact keeps being proven wrong by evidence. (alot of the times, it is suppressed evidence that overturns a commonly accepted evolutionary claim). then instead of looking for alternate explanations (you uncerimoniously toss out special creation on a logical fallacy) you assert that evolution is indeed true, just that you had things wrong before. "and trust us, we won't make that mistake again" *cough*

did you read the second article? it has been debunked, as there have been found bird skeletons that date before any dinosaurs.

i'm merely pointing out how impossible it is to argue with evolutionists, and how evolutionists base everything off of what they want to be true, if they used evidence, there wouldn't be so many times when evolution flips its position.

reply to post by novastrike81

Some read/study it and don't understand it which is why you see some evolutionists say we evolved from apes and some saying we didn't evolve from apes

No legitimate Evolutionist would ever claim we didn't evolve from apes. Some uneducated people who agree with evolution might make that claim, and some creationists might pretend that evolutionists can make up their mind but every legitimate evolutionary scientist knows that we evolved from apes. You're not still stuck on that living coexisting with man ape species versus our ape ancestors question are you? Not only did we evolve from apes but we still are apes by definition.

I've got no issue with theistic evolution, heck for all I know maybe God did guide evolution but the fact remains that evolution takes place and takes a long while. I won't debate the Bible in this thread, suffice it to say I disagree with almost everything in that book, if you want to have a debate about that you'll have to send me a U2U.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


If the back of the brain is underdeveloped then I'm surprised that Neanderthal lasted as long as they did. The back of the brain is responsible for such things as various aspects of vision, motor control, attention, parts of language, as well as regulating fear and pleasure responses. So, instead of lacking planning and highly developed social skills, Neanderthals would be uncoordinated, inattentive, and have an inability to control proper responses to stimuli. We can hypothesize that it was not the back part of the brain that was less developed in Neanderthals because we can trace the development of the brain through animals that exist today. The most ancient animals have little more than a brainstem, and as animals get more and more modern new structures appear until you reach humans who have the largest prefrontal cortex proportional to the rest of the brain. The thing about evolution is that when something works it continues to be passed on. So animals aren't going to have a properly developed occipital lobe and cerebellum and then once Neanderthals come about it is suddenly less developed, only to revert to its previous level of development once humans appear on the scene. Nature just doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

I know why he used the Pope, I've seen the video.

I'm well aware that the Pope is no one to get religious advice from, or life advice for that matter. I have no affinity for the Pope. His point was that MOST Christians accept the evidence for evolution and adapt their religious beliefs accordingly instead of clinging to empty doctrines for which there is no supporting evidence and putting forth bronze age mysticism as some sort of competitor against facts supported by evidence.

You're correct most Christians do accept evolution. I think you're referring to Theistic-evolution. I accept evolution too, just not the one where God just let it happen. Everything is spelled out in the Bible just some people refuse to read it or don't understand what they are reading. I think the same goes for science. Some read/study it and don't understand it which is why you see some evolutionists say we evolved from apes and some saying we didn't evolve from apes. No one wants to be wrong so there is constant war over who is right and who is wrong.

apart from lack of evidence on evolution's part, one of my biggest qualms with accepting that God orchestrated evolution is that there would be nothing special about being human. we wouldn't be created in his image. did we always have souls? do animals have souls? if our ansestors had souls, why would God create us in the beginning in such a form that we could not understand his grace?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


there is no evidence for that lol. and what i meant earlier is that they have a larger brain cavity than us, so if everything was identical in the back, there would be more space in the front. but it is pointless to speculate because none of it is based on a shred of evidence.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


New evidence emerges all the time, be it due to a new discovery or advances in technology. When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution he had to rely on direct observation, now we are able to reconstruct an entire species genome. That's a pretty large difference in the evidence that will be produced and as such the theory must be amended to account for it. If science got everything correct right off the bat there would be no need for science. The argument your making is tantamount to saying astronomy is wrong because we keep discovering new planets or that all of physics is wrong because a new particle is discovered.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


There is no evidence for what? The function of the occipital lobe and the cerebellum? Or the way the brain develops in every other species on the planet? Despite what you may believe we know an awful lot about both.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

you uncerimoniously toss out special creation on a logical fallacy

Because it doesn't make sense based on what we know. Have you not been paying attention?

We know that traits are passed down. We know that alterations to DNA occur and be passed down. We know that speciation, the evolution from one species to another, does occur.

All of the fossil evidence, genetic evidence, behavioral evidence and morphological evidence points to evolution and away from magical creation.

i'm merely pointing out how impossible it is to argue with evolutionists, and how evolutionists base everything off of what they want to be true,

Maybe that's how evolutionists work on the internet but that's just a direct reaction to the hard headed certainty of the "God did it" creationist crowd. Evolutionary scientists on the other hand are not swayed by anything BUT the evidence, personal faith or lack there of does not figure into it. You just pointed out a prime example of how new evidence is slowly but surely overturning the birds from dinosaurs idea, clearly they are willing to accept new evidence even if it moves away from past conclusions. Science also has a peer review process that catches hoaxers and "evidence suppression" as you called it.

I don't know anyone who wants evolution to be true or who wishes it so.

one of my biggest qualms with accepting that God orchestrated evolution is that there would be nothing special about being human

So then don't believe it. There is no evidence supporting God driven evolution. But then again there is no evidence supporting magical creation of any kind.

You don't think evolution makes us special? We are the only beings on the entire planet with full consciousness. Life on this planet evolved through volatile ages in Earth's prehistory, through ice ages and warm periods, through asteroid strikes and massive volcanic activity to spread and evolve and diverge into a myriad of forms and environments with intense complexity and specialization. The very fact that we are alive is special, that a natural process could eventually lead to a creature that can comprehend its own existence and slowly but surely unlock its own origin is incredible. We may not be divine according to evolution but we are most certainly special.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

I've got no issue with theistic evolution, heck for all I know maybe God did guide evolution but the fact remains that evolution takes place and takes a long while. I won't debate the Bible in this thread, suffice it to say I disagree with almost everything in that book, if you want to have a debate about that you'll have to send me a U2U.

I don't feel like debating it at the moment either. The Bible does speak of evolution indirectly; it doesn't flat out say we evolved. The evolution the Bible speaks of isn't referring to apes turning into humans but rather the animals we see today changing into their current forms. Like lions being meat eaters, even though science has found that some lions prefer to be herbivorous as mentioned in the Bible. It didn't happen over night and it did take time to reach where it does currently today. In those regards I agree with evolution.

reply to post by novastrike81


Yeah, the thing is though, if God is real it doesn't change the evidence. Think about it. If there is a God it doesn't change what we've discovered, it might allow us to look at evolution in a different light but it doesn't make evolution false.

If God is real I think he/she/it would want us to follow where the evidence leads us and not get caught up in religions that claim to be peddling the truth but are obviously not in light of the evidence we've uncovered.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

Yeah, the thing is though, if God is real it doesn't change the evidence. Think about it. If there is a God it doesn't change what we've discovered, it might allow us to look at evolution in a different light but it doesn't make evolution false.

If God is real I think he/she/it would want us to follow where the evidence leads us and not get caught up in religions that claim to be peddling the truth but are obviously not in light of the evidence we've uncovered.

Some of this evidence has been proven to be not true and a fabrication of extremist evolutionists wanting to believe it so. Like the combination of man and ape to produce the ancestors we evolved from. There isn't one fossil that hasn't been tampered with that suggest we evolved from apes. If there was we wouldn't be having this debate right now.