Evolution Vs. God

SuperFrog

Serenity, there is no such a thing as proved history as revealed in the bible. On contrary, it is proven wrong, from big flood, age of life on earth and many things like inequality between sexes. We have nothing against you having your faith, but please don't try to persuade us that answer to all question is 'because of God'.

Yes there is, and for many points here, are you saying there is no evidence of a deluge on the earth ever? The bible speaks of 3 ages, thus those saying the earth is 6000 years old are wrong, and it was Paul who preached the subjugation of women. Paul was not an apostle, and you can trace almost every argument people get into over the bible to Paul. So, your points are baseless here.

It has been proven, I link many studies that proved theory of evolution as correct.

You can say it all you want, but it has not been proved. Just show the intermediate links in fossils CHANGING from one kind to another. You all said they would be in the record and despite combing through the entire earth you can't find one. You can't show one fish changing into an amphibian, one amphibian changing into a mammal or lizard, or one lizard changing into a bird. So stop saying it's been proved. You might believe it, but that is based on faith.

Those what you call them micro evolutions combined with millions of years is what makes evolution.

There is no micro evolution. You all say adaptation is evolution, but it's just adaptation. Evolution is about coming from a common ancestor and changing very slowly over millions of years, and yet where is the proof? You don't have it otherwise you would produce it. Darwin's Finches were still Finches. Show a change in kind as you all keep saying that happened. Until you do, it's just a theory, it's just a belief which has NOT been observed either happening OR in the fossil record. Again, it's a belief with zero proof.

Now something your local priest probably will never mention to you

How do you know? Many Catholics are very progressive and believe in Evolution. This just seems like another smear against Christians and adds nothing to the debate.

based on evolution, scientists were able to predict what links should be between our ancestors and us should look like, how big brain etc. And then they discovered Lucy, yet another link between primates and us and it correctly fills the missing space between our ancestors and us, as predicted by science. (source)
There are many fossils like Lucy, but none as complete as Lucy.

It's very easy to see similarities in monkeys, apes and humans. It does not mean evolution. How do you know that God doesn't just like them? We make many models of cars when just a few would do us well. We know for a fact that Lucy has ape hands and feet. She did not have human hands and feet, and this drawing is much more accurate based on the bones found of Australopithecus:



as opposed to the one believed to represent Lucy which is a fraud:



Sort of how they drew Nebraska man all from a friggin tooth... an extinct pigs tooth... yes by all means tell me about what "scientists were able to predict what links should be between our ancestors " as you explain how they got this from a pigs tooth:



Look, they even showed his wife! My how smart they all must have felt when it was proved to be a pigs tooth. You and I are not going to agree. You see pretty pictures, you believe a finch beak getting thicker proves birds came from lizards or dinosaurs, and you think somehow life came from non-life despite repeated failures to prove any of it. You all have had millions of generations of fruit flies and bacteria to observe and they never change kind. You all have forced mutations and they are all the same kind in the end. Adapting to ones environment is NOT evolution.

I accept the historical proofs validating the accuracy of the bible, I accept the eye witness testimony of those who followed Yeshua, and I have had personal experienced validating my faith. I have the glory of the marvelous heavens where God gave his message in the Stars, the symbiosis of nature, Fibonacci Sequence, and Golden ratio to support that our world is in perfect balance in the Universe by design. Now, man sure has been messing some stuff up, but that also goes along with the bible, and one day I believe you and I will laugh about all of this. I do wish you well sir frog, but we are in very different modes of observation.

No single proof of evidence, no single link to research, just bubble... i mean Bible...

Now bending Bible again to prove your points. Three ages, before in this discussion it was new and old age... what is next??

This reminds me of Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson - The 3 phases of scientific truth.

Every great scientific truth goes through three phases:

1. People deny it

2. They say it conflicts with the Bible

3. They say they've known it all along

Goes very well with what we see here.


Please take time, and reply with something more meaningful.

Above post is just not making any sense. What do you mean Lucy did not have human hands and feet?! Do you understand that Lucy is not human, that is where humans evolved from. You ask for links, how life changed from one thing to another, yet once presented with proof you now argue that is not exactly the same as final product... You know, it took 3 million years of walking from Lucy to get to current humans. Hand and feet evolved in mean time.

I told you, there is no single archeological fact that points on big flood, yet Bible incorrectly states that big flood did happen. Please don't bend Bible stating it did not mean what it said. - That is what we are telling you all along - it is just another fictional book.

reply to post by SuperFrog


You really are a nasty person. I have tried to have a respectable conversation with you, and yet you always retort with snide comments that offer NOTHING to the discussion. If you need to rant, don't do it to me. I address your points, and no matter how snotty I want to get, I hold my fingers in check 99% of the time. I would appreciate it if you would attempt that.

The hands and feet of the actual "LUCY" were NOT THERE. The bones found on other Australopithecus were of ape characteristics, so she was an extinct form of ape. I showed the two images and you can clearly see the difference of what she really looked like vs what the museums put out. They give human hands and feet to her and she did not have them.

Next is the issue of her walking upright. Her bones are very similar to an Orangutans bones. They walk upright for a little bit, but since she had fused wrists it is more likely she walked on her knuckles as apes do 99% of the time. And, since you say she was around for 3 million years, should we not find some of those transitional intermediate fossils of her changing to a human? They are not there, and thus it is not observed and not proved.

UnifiedSerenity
You really are a nasty person. I have tried to have a respectable conversation with you, and yet you always retort with snide comments that offer NOTHING to the discussion. If you need to rant, don't do it to me. I address your points, and no matter how snotty I want to get, I hold my fingers in check 99% of the time. I would appreciate it if you would attempt that.

The hands and feet of the actual "LUCY" were NOT THERE. The bones found on other Australopithecus were of ape characteristics, so she was an extinct form of ape. I showed the two images and you can clearly see the difference of what she really looked like vs what the museums put out. They give human hands and feet to her and she did not have them.

So now you are an expert on archeology and evolutionary biology?

UnifiedSerenity
Next is the issue of her walking upright. Her bones are very similar to an Orangutans bones. They walk upright for a little bit, but since she had fused wrists it is more likely she walked on her knuckles as apes do 99% of the time. And, since you say she was around for 3 million years, should we not find some of those transitional intermediate fossils of her changing to a human? They are not there, and thus it is not observed and not proved.

This is where you wrong and will be proven wrong many times over. We are finding them, there is more and more evidence and with every proof such as Lucy we are proving that faith has nothing to do with science, even some biblical scholars like to thing otherwise.

So let me sum it up, bones are not enough proof that Lucy existed, and that she is our ancestor, even biology expert say she is and that is how we, humans, evolved?

reply to post by SuperFrog


I have presented several times the facts about Lucy as presented BY the experts, and given the links. If you don't like the facts that is not my fault.

Show me the hand and foot bones they used based on Lucy's skeleton



They are not there. Later they found Australopithecus foot and hand bones, and they were not anything like human hands and feet, and despite all this information they refuse to correct the models in museums and books.

So let me sum it up, bones are not enough proof that Lucy existed, and that she is our ancestor, even biology expert say she is and that is how we, humans, evolved?

Not those bones. It is a fantasy to believe she is a proved ancestral link to humans. Scientists no longer believe Australopithecus should be on the human family tree:

The fact Australopithecus can no longer be regarded as the ancestor of human beings was the cover story for the May 1999 edition of the well-known French scientific journal Science et Vie. Under the heading "Adieu Lucy [Goodbye to Lucy]," the text described why, based on a new Australopithecus finding known as St W573, Australopithecus apes needed to be removed from the human family tree: A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race. . .

The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree . . . Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.23

source

This was well documented and I am surprised you are pushing this line as proof of human evolution from ape to mankind.

Scientific findings have shown that evolutionist hypotheses regarding "Lucy," the best-known specimen of the class Australopithecus, are quite groundless. In its February 1999 issue, the famous French magazine Science et Vie admitted this under the headline "Adieu, Lucy" and agreed that Australopithecus could not be regarded as an ancestor of man.

23. Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, No. 980, pp. 52-62. 2009-08-15

source

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Well obviously you can't just replace evolution with God because you're just trading a bucket of crap for a barrel of piss. So what's your proposed solution?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity



Sorry, no she is not our direct ancestor, but still part of human family tree. My wrong terminology.

Let's take a look at the moment what we know about humans, this is human family tree.

How do you explain existence and extinct of those other races and our ancestors? Failed experiments?

Do we agree that by having fossils we can say that at some point in time they lived on earth?

And can you quote Bible where it states that there were 3 different ages. Was there time before God said 'let there be light?" When did this happen? When world got created? Please be more specific.

EDIT: I love fact that you use Islam creation site to make your points. Well done!

Can't you say god created evolutionary biology?

So evolution doesn't necessarily have to kill god. I suppose if you take a literal interpretation of some religious texts this could be a problem but if you take a more metaphorical interpretation evolution and religion can co-exist.

reply to post by JimTSpock


I'm not going to say something that is absolutely not true. Macro biology has nothing to support the theory that we can observe either now or in the fossil record. The cellular biology systems points to intelligent design. Now, for me I accept that as God as revealed in the bible. I can see where other faiths would point to their idea of God.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Lucy is not even supposed to be in our tree, thus she is not part of the evolution of man period. She is used to support the theory of man's evolution,and since science now does not accept that she is, then that supporting "evidence" is gone. This is not an "ignorant" unscientific bible thumping Christian saying it, but your fellow scientists.

I just recommend not using Lucy as your proof anymore based on the facts presented.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Nice try to avoid answering to any of the questions. They are still there. Try again.

Why does it always have to boil down to Christian lies????
lie 1 - Evolutionists worship Darwin and he was mostly wrong.
truth - Evolutionists respect him for his vision but know for a fact he was mostly wrong and freely acknowledge that.
lie2 - Evolution claims men came from monkeys.
truth - Evolution does not claim that anywhere ever.
Lie3 Evolution cannot be proven
Truth- Evolution is proven every year with your new flu shot.
Lie4 Evolution is an all encompassing term that holds all the Darwin, we came from monkeys, there is no missing link, evolution has never been observed.
Truth - a dictionary must be a Christian's worst friend.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Lucy is not considered proof of anything other than the fact that Humans existed at different stages of evolution. There is no such thing as a missing link. What people like you do is claim there needs to be a half point between 1 and 2 inches. When we show you 1.5 inches, you claim there must be something between 1 and 1.5 inches, when we show you 1.25 inches, you...well it goes on and on. Get another flu shot though!

reply to post by SuperFrog


You are on more than one thread, I have written about this several times. It is in several places. In Genesis 1:1-2 we are told that the earth was without form and became void. The Hebrew is not translated properly in the English and simply says "was without form and void" and the correct translation is became without for and was made void in the words Tohu va bohu.

"WAS" is:

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.


"Without Form"

H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.


"Void"

H922
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.


The topic of predestination comes up in some teachings because of the very verses speaking of a choice from a prior age.

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation (age) of the world , but was manifest in these last times for you,

"Foundation" comes from

G2598
καταβάλλω
kataballō
kat-ab-al'-lo
From G2596 and G906; to throw down: - cast down, lay.

So, something was ruined, and a new world was laid.

World

G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

If you are interested in digging into these things it really is easy. Just get a Strong's Concordance and like this video says, a "companion bible" which you usually have to order. They are not expensive, but not usually kept on bookshelves.

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This is NOT Noah's flood. In this set of verses, everything perished.

This is spoken of by Jeremiah where NOTHING was left alive:

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
Jer 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

In Noah's flood men and animals survived. This flood nothing was left alive. It was a complete destruction as Gen 1:1-2 says.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Lucy is not even supposed to be in our tree, thus she is not part of the evolution of man period. She is used to support the theory of man's evolution,and since science now does not accept that she is, then that supporting "evidence" is gone. This is not an "ignorant" unscientific bible thumping Christian saying it, but your fellow scientists.

I just recommend not using Lucy as your proof anymore based on the facts presented.

Wrong. Lucy is one of the transitional fossils you continuously clamor about. It shows morphological differences from apes who came before her and similarities to what humans have become today. Not a direct ancestor of ours per say but still a part if our family tree.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

All that proves is that these people had a creation myth.

So much for not saying something that is absolutely not true.

Serenity,

So what you are saying is that New Testament translation is wrong, where Old Testament can have different meaning for the same word?! How convenient, and goes well with Dr. Tyson's 3rd stage - it was there all along...

Only problem is that not even those believing in faith take that seriously. Folks still believe bible word for word.

But let's concentrate on your explanation of 3 ages. When, how long and what marks beginning and end of each 'age'.

To make sure we are on the same page, for rest of Bible, are you following Old or New Testament?

EDIT: What Bible said about those who are making change in words written by God?

I believe it is possible to observe human evolutionary biology processes at work. Natural selection through survival of the fittest through random genetic mutation. Or so-called random.
Observe human mating and reproduction behaviours and one can see certain patterns pertaining to the selection of more favourable genetic, economic and social formations for the purposes of increasing the probability of propagating a favourable genetic offspring.
As a keen student of human evolutionary biology I have devised a surprisingly accurate human classification system based on genetic, economic and social inequalities.

reply to post by SuperFrog


The problem is how it is taught. They translated to English and yes, I think some monkeyed with it in English, but you can say it is "accurate" if you read "was" as in, at a time it was which could be it had another existence prior, but that is not how it is normally taught.

Look, If you want to study the bible go ahead. I am not going to play your games. It's time to tap the dust from my feet with this discussion with you because it's a repeat. Go read the thread again. Why don't you try to deal with Lucy issue instead of turning this into an interrogation of me. I notice you all do like to do that. So, if you really want to study the bible and not just insult at every turn, it's offered, and available for free online. Download E-Sword and get a free Strong's concordance and read the bible. Click on a word and then see it in it's original language. I have studied it for over 25 years this way.

When you can admit Lucy does not prove evolution of mankind, then maybe we can have an honest discussion, until then, this game stops.

reply to post by peter vlar


No, it shows another whole species. Just like we have Gibbons, Baboons, Apes, Chimps, we had Lucy's. Transition would show a continued change and she is not a change to human anymore than an Orangutan is or didn't you see that science has said "Lucy" is not part of the human evolutionary tree?