Al Gore will be excited!!!

Pages

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

multi-species-angler Said:

severance Said:
we share DNA traits with rats too but i dont see anyone claiming we evolved from rats. percentages dont mean anything.  

more importantly there isnt enough sample data available from 1000s of years ago to be of much value in terms of a conclusive answer. an educated guess.......absolutely. but not FACT.

you are genetically similar to a banana but i doubt that you believe your ancestors where grown on a tree


 analysis of that DNA shows the difference in distance of relation between your cousin and a rat.

I claim that the process of evolution is a fact because it is observable.  we do not have 100% of the puzzle pieces to claim our exact 100% ancestry, but we do have a lot of it.

what about it is observable?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Evolution means change... Not necessarily advanced change. The DNA of all organisms have the ability to change. It's usually just the beneficial changes that lead to change over the entire species. Or lead to an entirely new species in the situation where isolated populations exist.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

espringers Said:
Evolution means change... Not necessarily advanced change. The DNA of all organisms have the ability to change. It's usually just the beneficial changes that lead to change over the entire species. Or lead to an entirely new species in the situation where isolated populations exist.

but this doesnt prove the generally accepted concepts of man's evolution.  if neanderthals for example were a different species(seperate rather than an earlier form of man) then what came before homo sapiens?

jsthntn's picture
jsthntn
Offline
Joined: 2/27/07

 this thread rox

 "I'll show you where the bear sh**s in the woods!" ~ Dad
(I still have no clue what it means.)

"You're not really even my son." ~ Dad
(I still don't believe him.)

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
Joined: 8/29/09

funny gifs

                                                                                                                         

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

 Alpine!  Yes, the Apostles Creed!  I didn't call it that as I wasn't sure every denomination that uses it called it that as I've heard it in several denominations!  
Paying attention?  Unless you are some kind of minister or priest, its a no brainier that I've looked and looked at this and have asked all denominations for explanations, including theologians (my brother included) priests, ministers, etc. many of whom are personal friends that I've hunted, fished, rode hundreds of miles on my bicycle, sat around campfires with, etc.   I've heard the explanations like yours before, many times, and appreciate your efforts!  BUT, the bottom line is that it all hinges on "Faith" in something that IMHO cannot be seen, heard, measures or verified and therefore to me has noScientific  validity!  Sorry, but that's the way I've evolved from thinking about this stuff and questioning it over many years in many situations!
I respect anyone's personal beliefs and glad you have them!  The fact that mine and many others happens to differ hardly makes us unbelievers some kind of dratted "Liberal Ogres!"  Respect should go two ways, as it certainly does with the Christians that I've mentioned above!  We all agree to disagree and often have discussions about Faith, Belief, and Disbelief!  Tolerance of other's view is number one in my opinion!   

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
 take dogs for example, humans selected the desired traits from breeding wolves and now we have poodles.
 

That's a perfect example of not changing as you think.  The DNA always contained the code for black labs, yellow labs, collies, etc.  Man simply selected the characters he liked as they showed themselves.

Like I said evolution is a religion.  As some have pointed out you will not change anyones religious beliefs.  Hence you will not stop multi from worshiping at the foot of Darwin. 

There are many good books that put evolution in perspective.  Try Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe.  Then you will understand that saying evolution is fact is pure foolishness.  If it was science would have proved it to everyone's satisfaction.  You will find there is a strong biochemical challenge to evolution. 

 
The above pictures of priimitive men are more art than science.  They sit around a table and say because the bone protrudes here it indicates a muscle attachement.  Hence the high cheek bones of native Americans indicate they were mostly herbivourse.  Then they start drawing what their imagination tells them to.   The evidence presented on here so far I don't consider evidence at all.  No more than finding a cape with a big S on it and holding it up as evidence that Superman really does exist. 
bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

 "Salvation" is already bought and paid for!?!  HUH?  This is what I have failed to understand since I was old enough to go to Sunday school!   How does (did) that work?   Seems to be no rational explanation of this "FACT" that everyone in every church I've ever attended KNOWS, but I don't understand!  My IQ mus be way over on the left of the normal probability curve!  3x has suggested that many times.....LOL
SPIT ON YOUR BIBLE?   Them's almost fighting words.  I DO NOT and WILL NOT spit or denigrate any bible, Koran, Torah, Book of Morman or any other manuscript that any religion considers sacred!  If there is one thing from my personal Bobkat Religion that I ever wanted to ram down others throats it would be complete RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE and respect for other religions.  These anti Muslim pass along I see on websites and end up in my mail box are horrible, IMO!  if we all followed religious tolerance there'd be a lot less fighting and misery in this world today, and IMO pretty well EVERY religion propagates this to variable extent! 
Whenever I have gone with friends and acquaintances to various Christian Churches, Mosques, Buddhist Temples, Synagogues, I have complete respect for the believers.  A Caveat - some parts of synagogues, Mosques, Morman Temples, etc. are off limits to guys like me!  but don't talk to me about respect for other religions.  

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 wrong again plainsman, youre on a roll today.  I suppose you also saw farenheight 911, and believe we never landed on the moon.  The book you mention is a hypothesis that lacks evidence, and even if you were able to discredit Darwin, he only lit the match and gave it a name.  You'll need way more real physical and observable evidence to challenge evolution.

Plainsman Said:
 take dogs for example, humans selected the desired traits from breeding wolves and now we have poodles.
 

That's a perfect example of not changing as you think.  The DNA always contained the code for black labs, yellow labs, collies, etc.  Man simply selected the characters he liked as they showed themselves.

Like I said evolution is a religion.  As some have pointed out you will not change anyones religious beliefs.  Hence you will not stop multi from worshiping at the foot of Darwin. 

There are many good books that put evolution in perspective.  Try Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe.  Then you will understand that saying evolution is fact is pure foolishness.  If it was science would have proved it to everyone's satisfaction.  You will find there is a strong biochemical challenge to evolution. 

 
The above pictures of priimitive men are more art than science.  They sit around a table and say because the bone protrudes here it indicates a muscle attachement.  Hence the high cheek bones of native Americans indicate they were mostly herbivourse.  Then they start drawing what their imagination tells them to.   The evidence presented on here so far I don't consider evidence at all.  No more than finding a cape with a big S on it and holding it up as evidence that Superman really does exist. 
multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 if the DNA contains the sequence to produce a black lab, how come I can't breed two cocker spaniels together and make a lab?  "Black lab" is not a recessive gene in another specie.

Plainsman Said:
 take dogs for example, humans selected the desired traits from breeding wolves and now we have poodles.
 

That's a perfect example of not changing as you think.  The DNA always contained the code for black labs, yellow labs, collies, etc.  Man simply selected the characters he liked as they showed themselves.

Like I said evolution is a religion.  As some have pointed out you will not change anyones religious beliefs.  Hence you will not stop multi from worshiping at the foot of Darwin. 

There are many good books that put evolution in perspective.  Try Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe.  Then you will understand that saying evolution is fact is pure foolishness.  If it was science would have proved it to everyone's satisfaction.  You will find there is a strong biochemical challenge to evolution. 

 
The above pictures of priimitive men are more art than science.  They sit around a table and say because the bone protrudes here it indicates a muscle attachement.  Hence the high cheek bones of native Americans indicate they were mostly herbivourse.  Then they start drawing what their imagination tells them to.   The evidence presented on here so far I don't consider evidence at all.  No more than finding a cape with a big S on it and holding it up as evidence that Superman really does exist. 
Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

No real scientist is going to gamble his reputation on stating things are fact when he can not prove them.  You can say wrong again, but that's like two little boys saying my daddy is stronger than your daddy.  Fact = proof, and all you have offered is circumstantial evidence at best.  That is little more than me predicting it will be dark for a while either side of midnight. 

It's not new research, but a couple of years ago people going back over the genetics of (forget species) found that there was much more genetic code than we thought.  For example each step of the DNA strand we now know controls many things, not just a single attribute.  Likewise many of the things we thought were mutations were already in genetic code of species. 

I think we have a lot of wana be scientists. 

One of my majors was entomology.  I worked extensively with aquatic macroinvertebrates.  Some species can reproduce never having mated.  It's called parthenogenesis.  Now for something interesting.  This also is in their genetic code.  Check it out if your really are interested in science. 

Wednesday's picture
Wednesday
Offline
Joined: 6/9/04

If Lycan puts a backyard beehive in, do you suppose those bees would evolve into a "Super Bee" down the road?  Would this "Super B" have any ties to the dodge car?

Please advise.

I know of a guy that told his girlfriend "I already got a job, what the hell would I need another one for?  Damn crazy woman trying to work me to death with her 'blow job'."  Where does a man with this level of intelligence fall into in the evolution spectrum?  My guess is neanderthal...

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Plainsman Said:
No real scientist is going to gamble his reputation on stating things are fact when he can not prove them.  You can say wrong again, but that's like two little boys saying my daddy is stronger than your daddy.  Fact = proof, and all you have offered is circumstantial evidence at best.  That is little more than me predicting it will be dark for a while either side of midnight. 

It's not new research, but a couple of years ago people going back over the genetics of (forget species) found that there was much more genetic code than we thought.  For example each step of the DNA strand we now know controls many things, not just a single attribute.  Likewise many of the things we thought were mutations were already in genetic code of species. 

I think we have a lot of wana be scientists. 

One of my majors was entomology.  I worked extensively with aquatic macroinvertebrates.  Some species can reproduce never having mated.  It's called parthenogenesis.  Now for something interesting.  This also is in their genetic code.  Check it out if your really are interested in science. 

Wrong, micro and macro evolution has been and still is observed, that is a fact and it is claimed as fact by its observers.

Right, but those discoveries supported and reinforced many of the theories within general evolution.

Right, we do, but not me.  I have zero formal education, I do not claim to be a real scientist like many here, but I can use and exercise the basic scientific method to figure things out and come to conclusions using evidence, observation and testing.

I am very experienced with parthogenesis, I have observed it first hand in my own house with two different species.  Replication is still replication, and there are always errors (mutations) in each replication, good and bad.  A self replicating specie is stll capable of change (evolution)

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 im still curious as to what came before homo sapiens

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

severance Said:
 im still curious as to what came before homo sapiens

That compilation of reconstructed faces in the order of there appearance in the fossil record and in the DNA sequences.....did you not see that?

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

multi-species-angler Said:
 
severance Said:
 im still curious as to what came before homo sapiens

That compilation of reconstructed faces in the order of there appearance in the fossil record and in the DNA sequences.....did you not see that?

recently scientists have discovered that neanderthals may have died out thousands of years before homo sapiens came on  the scene.  a while back they had said perhaps neanderthals lived with modern man for a time before dying out.  in either of these scenarios the result is the same.........

neanderthal could not have been an earlier form of man.  unless of course you want to dispute the legions of scientists who have been involved in these studies.

wouldnt that then mean that you would be going against science to reinforce your beliefs?

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 this was related to a study of modern man and neanderthals in europe.  am i to believe that neanderthals stayed the same in europe but magicaly transformed into homo sapiens elsewhere in the world. then these magical homo sapiens decided to move to europe?

Wednesday's picture
Wednesday
Offline
Joined: 6/9/04

She blinded me, with SCIENCE!!  -  Thomas Dolby

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

severance Said:
 this was related to a study of modern man and neanderthals in europe.  am i to believe that neanderthals stayed the same in europe but magicaly transformed into homo sapiens elsewhere in the world. then these magical homo sapiens decided to move to europe?

No, easy misconception, sapens and Neanderthal branched apart from a previous specie.

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

multi-species-angler Said:
 
severance Said:
 this was related to a study of modern man and neanderthals in europe.  am i to believe that neanderthals stayed the same in europe but magicaly transformed into homo sapiens elsewhere in the world. then these magical homo sapiens decided to move to europe?

No, easy misconception, sapens and Neanderthal branched apart from a previous specie.

and that specie was what?

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"Faith" in something that IMHO cannot be seen, heard, measures or verified and therefore to me has noScientific  validity!"

You have chosen to chase your tail.  If you can see, here, measure, and verify then you would still call it faith?   In tangible terms that is not normally possible.  Hence the definition of the word "faith"??

If you're looking for the validity of man in order to have faith you are already lost.  Not to mention confused. 

""Salvation" is already bought and paid for!?!  HUH?  This is what I have failed to understand since I was old enough to go to Sunday school! "

Yes, yes, that is part of the not paying attention part.  It is clearly covered in scripture by many inspired writers.  Nobody is keeping score, you can not purchase or earn salvation, eternal life.  If that were the case none of us could afford it, and none of us would be pure enough to earn it.  It is ours, we only need to accept it.  That starts by acknowledging the fact humbly that we are sinners.  It ends with a belief.   That belief comes through faith.  All are spoken to, but only some choose to hear the message.

Monkey to man chart is not new.  Attempts were made along the same lines long before DNA was a tool.  Now they have refined this art with learned science, and the face chart is more detailed and prettier.  This is a science still in it's infancy, with hundreds and thousands of missing links.  DNA is right in front of us, it should be easy to make determinations, right?  Thanks to Einstein we know an awful lot more about gravity than we once did.  We still know little about its true framework and wonders, yet it's all around us..........

 

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 im still waiting for you to say homo heidelbergensis so you can describe to me how it evolved into two distinct species and different times.  and how it supposedly died out at roughly the same time homosapiens made it onto the scene.  wouldnt these make it a magical leap to homosapiens without much in the way of evolution(which takes time)  and if theres so much evidence to back this up then where are the verying states of heidelbergensis along the evolutionary road to sapiens?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Msa... Is your middle name Google Scholar by any chance? I know full well why u continue to answer them. However, I can't for the life of me figure out why they keep asking you these questions.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

That compilation of reconstructed faces

Interpretation = Wild a$$ guess. 

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

espringers Said:
Msa... Is your middle name Google Scholar by any chance? I know full well why u continue to answer them. However, I can't for the life of me figure out why they keep asking you these questions.

for me its just entertainment. i really dont have a dog in this fight. im not religious and do believe humans had to evolve from somewhere. i just dont subscribe to the arrogance of the scientific community in pretending they know.  theres nowhere near enough evidence for a conclusion

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

One hypothesis is that sapiens drove neandrathals to extinction.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

espringers Said:
One hypothesis is that sapiens drove neandrathals to extinction.

but that wouldnt make sense if neanderthals died out in europe before sapiens even got there

jsthntn's picture
jsthntn
Offline
Joined: 2/27/07

 WHY.........WONT............THIS................THREAD............JUST..................DIEEEEEEEEEE

(and go to heaven)

 "I'll show you where the bear sh**s in the woods!" ~ Dad
(I still have no clue what it means.)

"You're not really even my son." ~ Dad
(I still don't believe him.)

jsthntn's picture
jsthntn
Offline
Joined: 2/27/07

 or hell i suppose?


 "I'll show you where the bear sh**s in the woods!" ~ Dad
(I still have no clue what it means.)

"You're not really even my son." ~ Dad
(I still don't believe him.)

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

if that "evolutionary collision" happened today there would be hiring quotas for those less fortunate "neancy's" - as we conservative sapien FBO bigots would refer to them

they would begin to breed faster than us - and we'd eventually be chin deep in neancy's and the neancy's would be reliant on gov't checks with no hope of a better future and we'd be stuck... cuz we'd be messing with evolution's divine plan for sapienhood

just sayin' that's what would happen, probably


 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:

That compilation of reconstructed faces

Interpretation = Wild a$$ guess. 

says a man with science degrees who puts his faith in an evidenceless hypothesis called creationism, and denies repeatedly tested, observed, peer reviewed, and evidence backed things like evolution.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Did you miss the part where I said leave religion out of it and I'm against it from a scientific hypothesis. I think the chances are zero that evolution explains anything. I think a lot of people buy into it because they can not stand not knowing everything --- which only they think.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:
Did you miss the part where I said leave religion out of it and I'm against it from a scientific hypothesis. I think the chances are zero that evolution explains anything. I think a lot of people buy into it because they can not stand not knowing everything --- which only they think.

show me the part where I mentioned religion?  evolution explains a lot, not everything, and it has nothing to do with what religion you subscribe to, but you just refuse to look and see for yourself.  you take one discredited scientist and read a couple of conspiracy theory books and think that holds water against hundreds of thousands of books, studies, and observations in support of evolution.

you repeatedly mention your scientific background and scholastic achievements, but keep asking the local forum high school drop out for evidence that you have better access to than I do.  I point you in the direction of the evidence you claim you want to see, and you say "bullshit! science doesn't know everything"  so reply with something a little more enlightening on the topic of evolution than "you can't make a Ferrari appear from nothing in my living room"  straight from the creationist handbook by the way.

You went to college to study this stuff and received degrees in it, why do I have to remind you how to apply the scientific method to something you don't understand?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

severance Said:
 

multi-species-angler Said:
 
severance Said:
 im still curious as to what came before homo sapiens

That compilation of reconstructed faces in the order of there appearance in the fossil record and in the DNA sequences.....did you not see that?

recently scientists have discovered that neanderthals may have died out thousands of years before homo sapiens came on  the scene.  a while back they had said perhaps neanderthals lived with modern man for a time before dying out.  in either of these scenarios the result is the same.........

neanderthal could not have been an earlier form of man.  unless of course you want to dispute the legions of scientists who have been involved in these studies.

wouldnt that then mean that you would be going against science to reinforce your beliefs?

you're still thinking of evolution as a single line of progression....It is multiple branches of change.

divide a group of one specie, by a river or a mountain rang or place a few on one island segregated from the rest of its own kind.  that group reproduces and passes on traits independently from its original specie eventually forming a completely new one.

After leaving Africa, Homo sapiens was well on its way to becoming 4 or 5 very different species until we developed boats and began intermixing our unique genetic traits again.  and we are still evolving, even visually, look at the average height of humans for example.

look at the scale below and show me the exact point where blue becomes red.  this is how evolution works, a Neanderthal doesn't magically give birth to a homo sapien, it is very gradual over hundreds of generations.

 look at all the different subspecies of giraffe that have spread out into localized populations in Africa.  all these subspecies are derived from one specie, and after hundreds or thousands of years of separation and isolation into their own unique genetics they have began to look different already.  one of these groups may drastically look so different in enough time it may even be classified into a whole different genus.


As far as our exact path from ape like ancestor to who we are today, we are still missing lots of pieces, but, that fact does not negate or falsify evolution, it just means our exact history is still unclear and until contradicting evidence is found to overwhelm the current theories and conclusions about our ancestry.  New evidence is found all the time and fit into the puzzle of humans origins.

those of you that say evolution is just a theory, remember, creationism is just a hypothesis.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Multi:

says a man with science degrees who puts his faith in an evidenceless hypothesis called creationism

Plainsman:

Did you miss the part where I said leave religion out of it and I'm against it from a scientific hypothesis.
Multi:
show me the part where I mentioned religion?

Are you kidding me.  Anywhere Christianity is mentioned your going to come bashing.  Or you just so pro evolution.  I guess liberals have this thing where they have to come across as intellectuals.  Believing evolution doesn't make you intellectual.  It doesn't make you anything that anyone can prove, but personally I think people who believe evolution are hoping God doesn't exist because of their lifestyles. 

So try to understand this:  with no concern for religion I don't believe evolution.  I think it's one of those things like political correctness and liberals are more likely to be suckers for it in their quest to be the most intellectual.   For example Richard Dawkins is a fanatic Christian hater and only about 1/2 as smart as he thinks.  

Multi I don't think you understand what proof or fact is.  If you did then no one would be disagreeing with you.     It's clear you want evolution to be true.  That doesn't make it so.  Maybe you should pray for it to be true. 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:

Multi:

says a man with science degrees who puts his faith in an evidenceless hypothesis called creationism

Plainsman:

Did you miss the part where I said leave religion out of it and I'm against it from a scientific hypothesis.
Multi:
show me the part where I mentioned religion?

Are you kidding me.  Anywhere Christianity is mentioned your going to come bashing.  Or you just so pro evolution.  I guess liberals have this thing where they have to come across as intellectuals.  Believing evolution doesn't make you intellectual.  It doesn't make you anything that anyone can prove, but personally I think people who believe evolution are hoping God doesn't exist because of their lifestyles. 

So try to understand this:  with no concern for religion I don't believe evolution.  I think it's one of those things like political correctness and liberals are more likely to be suckers for it in their quest to be the most intellectual.   For example Richard Dockins is a fanatic Christian hater and only about 1/2 as smart as he thinks.    

you're the one who keeps bringing up liberals, Christians, and religion.  none of which has anything to do with evolution or the evidence supporting it.

you don't believe evolution.  ok, present to us the overwhelming evidence you have to show how the species of animals on this planet change, diversify, and adapt.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Hehehe... Msa, the liberal! I effing love it. We have enough debates about enough issues on this site and everyone will eventually be a darn liberal.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
 ok, present to us the overwhelming evidence

I don't need to prove anything, I'm just pointing out there is no proof of evolution.  It's theory and I would guess that's all it's ever going to be.   Your the one that wants me to believe it and I can't see any reason to.  What everyone calls evidence I don't see it as such. 

espringer you know why some people hate profiling so much?  Because it works.  You can guess what liberals will be for, and if you know what someone is for you can be nearly sure if they are conservative or liberal.  For example what do you think the psychologists in England and Canada are, the ones that say pedophilia is just normal and people are born that way?  I'll bet I know. 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Great comparison! I just find it funny. Anyone who doesn't agree w u... Regardless of the subject... Must now be a liberal. U can't see the humor in it cause to u its black or white. BTW... Nothing he has ever posted makes me think he is a liberal. But, if agreeing with the science behind the theory of evolution makes a person a liberal by definition, then I am a frickin flaming libtard.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Multi, espringers, I admittedly have not read every single post since page 8, just got in from seeding, but I did read enough to see you guys have no comprehension of what faith is.

I almost feel sorry for people that have to have something they can see, feel, touch, smell, measure, sample, analyze ect.... and can not beleive in something more than that itself.

Enjoy going thru life with the "faith" you and your soul will be nothing more than worm shit when you die.

multi hows your "scientific proof" alligators have morals coming?

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

multi-species-angler Said:

severance Said:
 

multi-species-angler Said:
 
severance Said:
 im still curious as to what came before homo sapiens

That compilation of reconstructed faces in the order of there appearance in the fossil record and in the DNA sequences.....did you not see that?

recently scientists have discovered that neanderthals may have died out thousands of years before homo sapiens came on  the scene.  a while back they had said perhaps neanderthals lived with modern man for a time before dying out.  in either of these scenarios the result is the same.........

neanderthal could not have been an earlier form of man.  unless of course you want to dispute the legions of scientists who have been involved in these studies.

wouldnt that then mean that you would be going against science to reinforce your beliefs?

you're still thinking of evolution as a single line of progression....It is multiple branches of change.

divide a group of one specie, by a river or a mountain rang or place a few on one island segregated from the rest of its own kind.  that group reproduces and passes on traits independently from its original specie eventually forming a completely new one.

After leaving Africa, Homo sapiens was well on its way to becoming 4 or 5 very different species until we developed boats and began intermixing our unique genetic traits again.  and we are still evolving, even visually, look at the average height of humans for example.

look at the scale below and show me the exact point where blue becomes red.  this is how evolution works, a Neanderthal doesn't magically give birth to a homo sapien, it is very gradual over hundreds of generations.

correct. so then where are the many samples of various sapien/previous homonid blends?  shouldnt we then have a complete set of varying samples for the claim to be accurate?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Gst, nope. You clearly haven't read all the posts. If u had, u wouldve noticed I probably practice the same religion as u. I just don't try make the claim that faith in something spiritual is even remotely similar to trusting in science and things like evolution. One is faith by the very definition of the word because it asks u to believe without any evidence. The other asks u not to believe without evidence. Whether u or our resident biologist wants to believe it or not, the two things couldn't be at more opposite ends of the spectrum.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Here is what I don't get... Why can't u guys just admit "I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe even though I have never seen him or watched him perform any miracles."

And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

The two things can co exist... Especially, if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. It was written by men over 2000 years ago after all.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe"

I believe because I've been asked to believe??  This what you believe?  I don't, and neither does any other Christian, believe because we are supposed to or we've been asked to believe.  Faith and true belief is a relationship that touches one in the deepest parts of their existence, it is a tangible relationship that one can feel and experience in ways that apparently you have never accepted.

"And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires .."

The scientific process has been wrong countless times.  To think the scientific method is fool proof would make you a fool.  The scientific process is nothing more than mans attempt to understand creation and our role with what in our extremely limited resources we can measure.   We have learned much about gravity.  It is all around us, we experience it everyday.  Yet "gravity" is just a word we made up.  We really know nothing about gravity and its scientific motivation.

"if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. "

The Bible speaks of a great flood.  There was not a single great flood in mans time.  There have been hundreds of great regional floods, glacial outbursts primarily.  In all religions there have been talks of a great flood.   That's because there was one in their memory or handed down to them.  I believe great floods no doubt made major changes in ecosystems and the lives of people.  The Bible talks of one of these.  Interpretation of an event in minute trems is not overly important.  The message is.

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

gst Said:
Multi, espringers, I admittedly have not read every single post since page 8, just got in from seeding, but I did read enough to see you guys have no comprehension of what faith is.

I almost feel sorry for people that have to have something they can see, feel, touch, smell, measure, sample, analyze ect.... and can not beleive in something more than that itself.

Enjoy going thru life with the "faith" you and your soul will be nothing more than worm shit when you die.

multi hows your "scientific proof" alligators have morals coming?

Its going bad actually, one bit me a couple days ago.  But here again one of the great tools of fbo keeps asking me, the keeper of all the information, for proof of things they can easily research and find themselves.

The first problem is your personal definition of morals, the ssecond problem is unless its a made up fairy tale or hypothesis you won't believe it.

Crocodilians exibit primitive moral behavior wether you like it or not.  Its obvious in their social interactions, in the way they care for their young, even in the way one individual will adopt and care for another's young or even temporarily babysit for another.  Even if I duck taped you to a chair and spent a year observing 25 crocodilian species examples of moral behavior, you would notbelieve me, you would just claim it to be part of the liberal agenda.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
Gst, nope. You clearly haven't read all the posts. If u had, u wouldve noticed I probably practice the same religion as u. I just don't try make the claim that faith in something spiritual is even remotely similar to trusting in science and things like evolution. One is faith by the very definition of the word because it asks u to believe without any evidence. The other asks u not to believe without evidence. Whether u or our resident biologist wants to believe it or not, the two things couldn't be at more opposite ends of the spectrum.

If this is your beleif, why bother "practicing" any religion that requires faith????

Without faith, there is no reason to "practice" religion.

espringers, WHY do you "practice" religion?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Alpine Said:
"I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe"

I believe because I've been asked to believe??  This what you believe?  I don't, and neither does any other Christian, believe because we are supposed to or we've been asked to believe.  Faith and true belief is a relationship that touches one in the deepest parts of their existence, it is a tangible relationship that one can feel and experience in ways that apparently you have never accepted.

"And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires .."

The scientific process has been wrong countless times.  To think the scientific method is fool proof would make you a fool.  The scientific process is nothing more than mans attempt to understand creation and our role with what in our extremely limited resources we can measure.   We have learned much about gravity.  It is all around us, we experience it everyday.  Yet "gravity" is just a word we made up.  We really know nothing about gravity and its scientific motivation.

"if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. "

The Bible speaks of a great flood.  There was not a single great flood in mans time.  There have been hundreds of great regional floods, glacial outbursts primarily.  In all religions there have been talks of a great flood.   That's because there was one in their memory or handed down to them.  I believe great floods no doubt made major changes in ecosystems and the lives of people.  The Bible talks of one of these.  Interpretation of an event in minute trems is not overly important.  The message is.

I fully respect your beliefs in the supernatural and you beliefs are of absolutely no concern to me, UNTIL!...you use your belief in something with no evidence, no observations, no tests, no peer review, etc, to try and disqualify something like evolution, with heaping tons of evidence, millions of observers, infinite tests, repeated global peer reviews, over and over.

You sayevery religion speaks of a great flood?  I know you're not that narrow minded.

y

sdwxman's picture
sdwxman
Offline
Joined: 4/6/07

 Al Gore approves of this thread.... He's still excited!


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
Here is what I don't get... Why can't u guys just admit "I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe even though I have never seen him or watched him perform any miracles."

And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

The two things can co exist... Especially, if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. It was written by men over 2000 years ago after all.

espringers, I beleive in science.

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it can answer everything?

Like I asked before, why do you "practice" a religion at all?

As to your second emboldened statement, if that is actually true, why then are those that look with "skeptism" on evolutionists beleif that man crawled out of the premodial sludge as a single cell creature cabillions of years ago condemned as you and others do? 

Once again, I beleive in science. I believe in many things science has produced as a result of intelligent thought. 

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it has the answer to everything. Remember "science" can't even make up it's mind if eggs are good for you or bad for you.

Therefore I have faith in something more.  

Pages