DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by boncho

 

You did not answer my question... How is it possible that a specie gives birth to a new one, and that they live SIDE BY SIDE? Like monkeys and humans?... What was the environmental stress that created humans, but also left the monkeys as they were while at the same time creating the new specie?

How is it possible you are not a Sherpa?

"Side by side" is a very relative term you seem to be taking liberties with.

By the way, the whole monkeys=humans, humans=monkeys, is not as cut and dry creationists want it to be (And "monkey" is incorrect). There is a severed tellomere (if I remember correctly) showing where the separation happened but Monkeys (or chimp rather) are not our direct descendants, in other words, many species over, and many species over from that... There was a link somewhere down the line. It's not like Bobo the Chimp woke up one day and said, "Hey, I'm gonna walk bi-ped today, and start using these opposable thumbs."

reply to post by boncho


Also, am I to believe Sherpas are a new human specie, or was it simply that those with the INNATE ability to survive with low oxygen simply did?... But it wouldn't be a mutation then, no?...

reply to post by boncho


You mean no monkeys live close to humans? It never happened?

What about Africa?

I take side by side to a whole new level? where?

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by boncho

 

Also, am I to believe Sherpas are a new human specie, or was it simply that those with the INNATE ability to survive with low oxygen simply did?... But it wouldn't be a mutation then, no?...

Comparing the genomes of Tibetans and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau. Tibetans and Han Chinese split apart as recently as 3,000 years ago, say the biologists, a group at the Beijing Genomics Institute led by Xin Yi and Jian Wang, according to recent reports in Science and the New York Times.

Elsewhere, researchers from the University of Utah School of Medicine and Qinghai University Medical School in the People's Republic of China found that thousands of years ago, Tibetan highlanders began to genetically adapt to prevent polycythemia (a process in which the body produces too many red blood cells in response to oxygen deprivation), as well as other health abnormalities such as swelling of the lungs and brain (edema) and hypertension of the lung vessels leading to eventual respiratory failure.

www.dailygalaxy.com...

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by boncho

 

You mean no monkeys live close to humans? It never happened?

What about Africa?

I take side by side to a whole new level? where?

When did I say that? And should I ask, are you under the impression man came from monkeys? Because they didn't.

Why am I asking that? You already showed us earlier you're ignorant about that. You think monkeys turned into humans... -sigh-

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by boncho

 

You mean no monkeys live close to humans? It never happened?

What about Africa?

I take side by side to a whole new level? where?

If I live in Alaska, and you live in New York, are we side by side? We are on the same continent. Same as "Africa" right?

I tried to find something that would explain the concept to you, that was easy to understand. You can try this.

First, I am not going to give you the common brush off to your question: "We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor". That's just avoiding the question, and frankly, I don't agree with it. I'm going to assume that when you say "monkey," you not only include those animals called monkeys that are alive today, but also animals that looked and behaved like monkeys that lived millions of years ago. An animal that lived about 40 million years ago, known as Aegyptopithecus, is believed by scientists to be a direct ancestor of humans. If I saw that animal swinging through the tree branches today, I'd certainly call it a monkey.

I'm going to go one step further and assume that you are using the term monkey even more colloquially, and include chimpanzees and gorillas under the general umbrella of monkeys. Technically those are apes, but since they are non-human primates that are indeed decended from monkeys, let's go ahead and let that one by. So below, I'm going to cover a scenario whereby humans might have evolved from apes, while leaving apes still existing.


A million or so years later, some of the apes were living over one thousand miles apart, and were separated by more than 10,000 generations -- 10,000th cousins, so to speak. Some were so distantly related that they were no longer interfertile with one another. Had they somehow been put together and tried to breed, they would not have produced offspring. However, they remained interfertile with the apes closer to them.

Typically, those less than 6000 generations apart remained interfertile. So they all were still "connected" by a chain of interfertile pairs. While it might be impossible for two apes that were 10,000 generations apart to have children together, they could have still theoretically shared grandchildren or great-grandchildren, by mating with apes that were only 5000 generations apart, which in turn mated with ones 5000 generations apart. Keep in mind, though, that in reality the degree of interfertility was rarely if ever tested: apes interbred only with apes that lived nearby, which were rarely separated by more than a dozen or so generations.

As time went on, the apes living in the forest became separated by more and more generations from the apes in the savanna. No longer were any of the apes interfertile with all of the others, not even the ones living in the transition territories. As populations ebbed and flowed, various bands moved about, took over territory of others, suffered from diseases and starvation and predation and changing climates -- eventually there became a day that the last "interfertility link" between the forest apes and savanna apes died. This day came and went without fanfare, as interfertility is a hypothetical concept: it is unlikely that any of forest apes had even tried to breed with any of the savanna apes for thousands of years prior to the point it became theoretically impossible.

From this point on, the two lines were completely diverged. There was no turning back, as it was now impossible for any of the forest apes to mix their genetic code with the savanna dwellers. The apes living in the forest continued to thrive in the forest, and were the ancestors of modern chimpanzees and bonobos. The apes in the savanna were our ancestors, and by this point, there is a good chance they looked a lot like primitive humans. They were far more intelligent than the apes in the forest, since intelligence had an especially high value in the savanna. Being able to accurately throw a rock, sharpen a stick to use as a weapon, make a fence or other structure to protect themselves from predators, and make use of animal furs were all extremely valuable skills here, and those that more readily acquired these skills tended to be the ones that produced the most surviving children.

karmatics.com...

Originally posted by Badgered1
Basically your argument is that a sun god did it.

Me: He/She/It/3.14 didn't.

No need for a debate.

You bring any concrete proof to the table without invoking the supernatural.
Oh, it just got all hard, didn't it?

Perhaps you want to sow a seed of doubt. Fair enough. We'll re-analyse the data.
Will you re-analyse the Bible?

Or are you trying to correlate Biblical stories to actual history?
Bless.

No my argument is that the biblical christian god did it. You saying removing the idea that a supernatural god did it makes it hard, I agree. It makes it impossible to truly understand. Did it ever occur that your making it too hard? just a thought..

What i dont understand is that most people on these sites know about one world order, depopulation etc but you cant seem to fit all the pieces together and understand why this evil is happening. Not only that but its been prophesied thousands of years ago.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Have you Ever heard of the Petrified Forest . .. . ?

Or . . .. . .

Fossils .. .. . ?

Fossil, dinosaur bones, those things were all put on Earth by Satan to make us confused. Dinn u know?

educate yourself www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
What's to debate?
We are experiencing both creation and evolution.

can you post a link of evolution being seen today? I havnt come across any but if you have please share

Originally posted by Nacirema

Originally posted by jeramie

Originally posted by Nacirema
Creationism isn't even a valid scientific theory, so why is it on the same playing field as evolution?

Neither one is a scientific theory. People BELIEVE in each one.

Thank you for the post, OP. It was very interesting. I pray somebody's eyes are opened because of it.

-sigh

How do I deal with scientific illiteracy...

You don’t *believe* in evolution. You either accept it or reject it as a plausible theory that explains the emergence and diversity of life from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms.

Do you not accept the theory of gravity? If you answer yes, then why not try jumping off a ten story building! You won’t find many people discrediting the atomic theory or theory of gravity because it does not lacerate their connection with God; however, devout fundamentalist religious followers discredit the validity of evolution because it places them closer to atavistic great apes, rather than to two human beings who fell from a fixed state of grace into sin.

edit on 5/19/2013 by Nacirema because: (no reason given)

Okay evolutionist "logic" as they call it is obscene. You think "accepting" something and believing are different. When you believe in Christ you accept him into your heart. When you accept evolution as a plausibility, then teach it to our children as fact, you believe it. I hate it when evolutionists try and put gravity and evolution/big bang on the same playing field. There not at all. If you read the whole original post you should have gotten that. It wouldnt bother me if we came from apes if the facts were there. They arent, we have no proof. If you think otherwise post proof and ill take a look.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
What's to debate?
We are experiencing both creation and evolution.

can you post a link of evolution being seen today? I havnt come across any but if you have please share

You see it when a bacteria evolves and becomes airborne. That's a very simple example, but we also have other ones:

In the last ten years scientists have come to realize that a parasite was killing all of the male members of hypolimnas bolina on the Samoan islands of Upolu and Savaii. The pest would infect the females and then kill the males before they were hatched. The problem was so severe that in 2001 males inhabited only 1% of the population and the species was on the verge of extinction in this area of the world.

In the span of one year and 10 generations in the hypolimnas bolina family, the male butterfly’s evolved and obtained a suppressor gene that prevented the killer bacteria from spreading. In modern days the male population has increased to 40% in the colonies on these islands. Evolution is often much more evident in insects, as a family generation and lifespan is much shorter then with primates.



Read more: www.toptenz.net...

If you want to argue, oh well adaptation is not evolution... Keep in mind the genetic code for these creatures, are changing. Over time, more than one change, or a major change by natural selection (specific individuals dyring because they don't have a gene expression) after many generations, the original data, becomes completely different. If .07% of genes are modified, and another .07% is lost through natural selection, a thousand generations and the genetic code starts varying greatly. 10,000 generations.... and....

Keep in mind, evolution is only seen in very simple organisms, for the most part. Where their life spans are in hours or minutes.

Major changes in primates happened over thousands and thousands of years. I don't see why this is hard to grasp though. If we see small changes in one lifetime, what do you expect in 50-80,000? Consider, there were generations where the expectancy age was very short.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

The great Flood of Noah’s day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation.

I don't remember dinosaurs in Noah's account, do you? In fact, it's not the best explanation. Especially how many layers of sedimentary rock we have. Did Noah have more than one flood?

Because there have been a number of catastrophic events on the Earth. Floods, Meteors, Super Volcanos, Earthquakes, the Ice Age...

We are talking about hundreds of millions of years here. Try to fathom that for a second.

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Have you Ever heard of the Petrified Forest . .. . ?

Or . . .. . .

Fossils .. .. . ?

Fossil, dinosaur bones, those things were all put on Earth by Satan to make us confused. Dinn u know?

educate yourself www.youtube.com...

Instead you could educate yourself without listening to the world of charlatans.

One of the most comprehensive online archives of peer-reviewed journal articles, JSTOR, does not show a single peer-reviewed article—scientific or otherwise—published in Veith’s name. But Veith’s primary mode of communication is not the printed but rather the spoken word. For anyone desiring to enter the dark fantasy world of Walter Veith—a universe that seamlessly blends nutritional advice and traditional Adventist apocalyptic beliefs with Veith’s own idiosyncratic, surreal, and sinister conspiracy theories—the portal is any computer with an internet connection.

Veith is a South African Seventh-day Adventist who was born in 1949 and was at one time chair of zoology at the University of the Western Cape.


If nothing else, he knows how to play the chords of apocalyptic menace with a campy but bravura showmanship. And he seems to know exactly what he is doing. Veith repeatedly states in his performances that he is not telling his listeners what to believe but is simply presenting them with the “facts” so that they can make informed judgments for themselves. But these claims are also simply part of the show. Veith is by every indication a religious confidence man who has carved out his own niche market by convincing sadly credulous listeners to suspend their critical judgment just long enough to become convinced that what he is saying is not only entirely plausible but is in fact the very height of reason. .

spectrummagazine.org...

Someone who claims he speaks about facts but he has none to give except the ones he proclaims.

Mutilation of science to make it fit into the Judeo-christian mythology is meaningless. There can't be a transitional period from myth to fact.

Science does not offend religion. It ignores it and focuses solely on fact.

On the other hand, religion should not be trying to gain credibility in the world of facts and science. It doesn't have to. Religion is based on faith. Faith requires nothing but Belief.

Believers who try and use science to prove the mythology of their particular sect only get themselves in trouble.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Why is the world fine tuned to life? Just by CHANCE!?

World is not fine tuned for life...you got that backwards...life fine tunes to the environment in order to survive.

DEBATE Evolution vs Creation.

My personal view is that both; creation and evolution, exist under the same tent. There before you are duel performances that interact to then fill the center ring with their results... us; the human condition in the flesh.

But, aside from any enjoyment derived from arguing, it seems absolutely pointless to devote much time and/or energy to debating the subject. Under this bigtop, the opposing audiences are pretty much dedicated and immovable. I doubt that such have ever changed many a heart or mind.

The most used creationist argument is, that something can not come from "nothing", thus evolution and the big bang must be false and the existence of a divine creator proven.

Please, somebody be so kind and enlighten me, where or from what did this "creator" come?

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Of all of the conversations that never happened on Facebook, this one didn't happen the most.

A few points you should clean up next time you try to pass this off as a conversation that really happened:

1. There's a difference between radiometric dating and radiocarbon dating. No scientist, or even moderately educated layman, would make the mistake of claiming that radiocarbon dating can be used to date anything that's millions of years old. Radiocarbon dating relies on calibration curves garnered from samples which can be independently dated using other methods for precisely the reasons you state.

2. There's no need to have "faith" that scientists are correct. It's why they publish the results of their experiments, including the methodology by which they arrived at their results. That way, anyone with the desire to repeat those experiments can. If they get the same results, great! If they don't get the same results, they can then discuss why they may not have, more people can run the same experiment, etc. Science is self-correcting and not dogmatic.

3. You seem to be confused about the difference between the colloquial definition of a theory and the scientific definition of a theory. You would do well to acquaint yourself with the difference between the two. You also seem to be confused about an observable phenomenon (gravity, evolution, etc.) and the theory used to explain that phenomenon (the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, etc.). Two different things.

4. Many things have been called "supernatural" and attributed to a deity or deities. Lightning, volcanic eruptions, the Sun, the Moon, disease, fire... almost any phenomenon you care to name. Science understands them now. You're basically arguing that the origin of the Universe will always remain a mystery. Given the track record of science explaining the "supernatural" so far, you're betting on the wrong horse. If that's your argument for God, then (to paraphrase Tyson) God is just an ever-shrinking ball of scientific ignorance.

5. It's always good form, particularly in a written debate, to cite your sources and not just copy-paste other people's work. Further, if you're going to argue a point based on "well, I've heard evolutionists say that...", the provide a source. Who said it? When did they say it? What was the context? Similarly, when you're citing "facts" that appear to debunk evolution, provide a source for those facts. Even better, make sure that the facts you're presenting really support the conclusion that you think they do.

Other than that... it's quite an interesting combination of arguments from ignorance (aka God of the Gaps), arguments from incredulity, and strawman arguments you've constructed for yourself. Clean it up a bit and I bet you could fool AiG, the ICR, WND, or maybe even Conservapedia to post it as if it really occurred.

No matter how much science discovers there always remains more to discover. It is finite.

At the moment the singularity is the proposed time 0 (perhaps in the future that will change and we go even earlier) according to science from what I know. But how did it get there and what caused it to 'expand'. There will always be the argument of what happened before that. That is where faith comes into it. No matter how much science uncovers there will always be boundaries around it.

Given this some people choose to believe in God on faith which is what is required to believe in him, some people choose not to. The undeniable fact is that there is one truth. Both cannot be right.

I believe the religious perspective is that God is separate from the singularity as it is a created thing and he is separate from creation otherwise it would be an obvious paradox. The concept of the big bang is not necessarily against religion either.