Al Gore will be excited!!!

Pages

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

gst Said:

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.  

Science has been wrong, therefore i make shit up....seems legit

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

multi-species-angler Said:
 

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.

Okay, you win, given the right "definition", I guess ANYTHING can have morals.

Perhaps it is only the mother alligators that have "morals" in that they try to prevent the unmoral male alligators from eating their young.

But hey, maybe with the right "definition" eating ones young might be veiwed as "moral".

"The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

This in a nutshell sums up the whole arguement.

You do not wish to follow a set of moral values, you along with a growing number of others want to simply make up the "definition" of morals as you go along.

Worked well for civilizations such as the Romans didn;t it.

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

 

gst Said:

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?

what?  where in that statement do i give you any inkling of what exactly my believe system is other than to say faith requires belief without any evidence by the very definition of the word?  also, where in that statement do i say i don't have faith?  

finally, if you think for a minute i am about to explain my personal belief system to you and the rest of the world on a frigging website, you are batchit frogging crazy!  

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

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

multi-species-angler Said:
 

gst Said:

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.  

Science has been wrong, therefore i make shit up....seems legit

For someone claiming to have such a science based analytical mind, you sure do not seem to exhibit it in claims such as this.

I mean you have failed to catch even the basic premise of the statement.

How about trying "science has been wrong more often than not, so I will not be so arrogant to beleive it has answers for everything"

It simply shows once again, you have no concept of faith.

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

 how did we get rid of mauser?

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

espringers Said:
 

gst Said:

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?

what?  where in that statement do i give you any inkling of what exactly my believe system is other than to say faith requires belief without any evidence by the very definition of the word?  also, where in that statement do i say i don't have faith?  

finally, if you think for a minute i am about to explain my personal belief system to you and the rest of the world on a frigging website, you are batchit frogging crazy!  

All I asked is why you "practice" religion?

I mean if all that happens when we die is we become compost to feed some other evolving organism, why bother "practicing religion" as you have admitted you do?

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

 

multi-species-angler Said:
 how did we get rid of mauser?

im not sure where you are going with this but i have wondered the same thing. i miss his rivalry with plainsman

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

 

gst Said:

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.  

anybody ever say it can answer anything?  

i practice for my own personal reasons... ain't about to share them with you cause its none of your damn business.  what about anything i have said makes you think i shouldn't be practicing some sort of belief structure?

we don't condemn you for your views on evolution... we are asking you guys to present evidence to dispute it.  it is one of the most tested and accepted scientific theories of all time.  if you are going to cast doubt on it, you best bring something more than... "science can be wrong".  "the bible says otherwise."  "your faith in evolution is no different than my faith in jesus".

again... nobody is claiming science has all the answers... what is being claimed is that it is the human process for trying to get answers.  you guys keep coming back with "yeah.  but, its fallible."  no chit sherlock!  show us the fallicy in the theory of evolution and us and the rest of the world will listen with eyes and ears wide open!  there might be a bit of review done on what you have to say... but, show us the evidence its false.  thats all that is asked of you.

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

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

multi-species-angler Said:
 how did we get rid of mauser?

So this is how you defend your "scientific" claims? Get rid of people who would question them with "skeptism" you can not answer?
 

Multi says "The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

Once again multi if anyone can define morals and pick and choose the definition, I guess we are ALL moral people, even Jeffery Dahmers.

So how about those male alligators eating their young any time the opportunity arises, does YOUR "definition of morals" allow that as aceptable "moral" behavior?

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

 Amazing the discussion between evolution and creation!   Lots of my religiously devout friends have found intellectual ways of accepting both!  Nothing wrong with that IMO!
Its kind of scary  the number of people here who absolutely discount science, or claim to, anyway!?!  Or distrust Science and its developments and findings, too, unless they can personally benefit from them.   Seems the further right one gets in politics the more distrust and reactionary (used in the real meaning) one gets!  
Off topic a bit but a couple of examples.  No wonder third world countries are now HPV vaccinating everyone at $1.00 a dose while at least two of our presidential candidates were absolutely opposed to this for anyone!!!! Jeesh.!!  And we taxpayers are still giving billions to Africa for "just say No for aids prevention" programs! ". And all of us here on FBO bitch about govt money wasting......sorry for the rant, but we need FAR MORE Science  and more separation of church and state, IMHO!   

Tacoman's picture
Tacoman
Offline
Joined: 2/13/06

bobkat Said:
 Amazing the discussion between evolution and creation!   Lots of my religiously devout friends have found intellectual ways of accepting both!  Nothing wrong with that IMO!
Its kind of scary  the number of people here who absolutely discount science, or claim to, anyway!?!  Or distrust Science and its developments and findings, too, unless they can personally benefit from them.   Seems the further right one gets in politics the more distrust and reactionary (used in the real meaning) one gets!  
Off topic a bit but a couple of examples.  No wonder third world countries are now HPV vaccinating everyone at $1.00 a dose while at least two of our presidential candidates were absolutely opposed to this for anyone!!!! Jeesh.!!  And we taxpayers are still giving billions to Africa for "just say No for aids prevention" programs! ". And all of us here on FBO bitch about govt money wasting......sorry for the rant, but we need FAR MORE Science  and more separation of church and state, IMHO!   

These are the kind of posts that make FBO STINK!

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

 gst if I thought for one millisecond you were actually interested in the social behavior of crocodilians (male and female), I would post and link and feed your yerning brain all day long, but you're not interested, you're just being a douche of such magnitude that could cleanse a whale vagina.  You wouldn't follow link, you refuse to cross refference supplied data, you just have your fingers in your ears yelling lalala faith faith faith.

Do fbo a favor and post a weather report, leave an outdoor relevant comment on a photo.  Just please post or reply with something other than your repetative bullshit.  We get it, no one comprehended faith better than you, we know, the world will end because of incrementalism, liberals suck and evolution is part of the liberal agenda invented by the Nazis.

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

 so I give gst what he asked for 3 dozen times and now he say, "oh yeah, what about male alligators"

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

fishmahn and others seem to have great faith in "peer review" and the scientific process when it has been proven wrong many times.  Many, many times on many, many issues.   Ones faith is ones faith though.

"You sayevery religion speaks of a great flood?"

You would be ignorant to not know this.  It is spoken of in Christianity, in Islam, in Judaism, in Hinduism, and many lesser knowns and older yet religions..  The details are different, but a great flood none the less.  The planet has known great floods throughout time, certainly throughout mans time.  The geological evidence is clear.

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
 faith requires belief without any evidence

Faith would be tough with no evidence.  I call evolution a religion because you have some evidence, but no proof.  Without absolute proof it then requires faith to believe.

Once again:  the reason I asked if you believed George Washington was our first president, or had you been to Australia was to test if you believe history and witnesses.  I don't just read the Bible.  I read historians both Christian and secular.  I read the writings of those who were there in the Bible, and the writings of those who interviewed people still alive after the life of Christ.  In the end I decided that weighing the evidence there was more in my opinion to believe in God. 

Yes there are things I don't know.  However, my ego is not so big to pretend I do like some people.  I have the curiosity of a scientist, but am also able to be satisfied with the reality I will never know all.   I can leave atheists alone as long as they don't try to convince me to go to he!! with them. 

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

esprigers, I asked why you "practice" a religion because it if you do so because you have a concern where your soul may eternally rest, you have a beleif/faith in a greater power.

So if you have this belief/faith then why not have a beleif/faith that there is some connection in some way to how we all got here to this greater power that has the ability to provide for your soul after you are gone?

Now if you don;t beleive any of this and are "practicing" a religion to simply appease something or someone and have no faith that is different and we have no need to examine that.

Multi .

"The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

This statement you made clearly shows you wish to pick and choose which "morals" one maintains or are examined or are factored into your "science".

ANYTHING can be deduced in this manner by picking and choosing what you beleive is "moral behavior".

Based on this standard, I can then make the statement because Jeffery Dahmers did not rape and eat 12 year old girls he had "morals".

And if this is what your "science" is based on, it is a pretty lame arguement indeed.

So now explain how male alligators eating their young fits into your "theory" of alligators having morals? 

I mean coming from Mr. evolution himself, using an example of an evolved reproductive response developed over millions of years as an example of an alligator having "morals" and as such choosing to "adopt" anothers young as you earlier claimed they do because it is the "right" or moral thing to do is pretty lame "science".

Do you suppose the male alligator stops and ponders whether he should or shouldn;t eat the young that are scrambling for the water from their nest based on whether it is right or wrong?????????

"The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

But then again this is what we see far to often in "science". Manipulation of "evidence" based on what one wishes to use to reach a concluded "theory".

And yet people are condemned for being "skeptics".

So multi is salt good for you or bad for you based on the latest "science"?

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

 I thought this thread was about global warming.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:
Multispecies don't apply for a genetics job. I forget the exact breakdown, but if I remember it's 25% of each of your parents, 12.5% each set of grandparents and on down. So 50% parents, 25% all grandparents, 12.5 % all great-grandparents etc.

No evolution is not fact. If it were fact it would no longer be theory. That is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Fact???? Maybe you better let the scientific community know that.

Wrong. Evolution is both fact and theory. You still don't understand theory and law. I haven't been on here for awhile, and it's quite obvious I missed a lot . Really don't feel like reading through all of it right now, but you acting as if the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't believe evolution leads me to believe that you have got to be trolling. There is no other explanation at this point if you are going to blatantly deny the truth.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Pascal's wager? Really? Debunked. It doesn't take into account all religions so it's a failed argument from the get go.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_scientific_theories_said_to_be_'not_just_a_theory'

“Evolution” is not the same as “the theory of evolution.” “Evolution” is the observation. “The Theory of Evolution” is an explanation for what we observe.

http://www.teachthemscience.org/scientifictheory

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

bobkat Said:
 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!  And there in lies your admitance of not understanding what faith actually is. 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!   So why then do we never see people like you speaking out when people like multi disrespect Christian religions??

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

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-science-brief/69270-did-neanderthals-die-out-before-modern-humans-arrived-in-europe

Holy crap, science claiming science is wrong??

Now what are the junior science club members going to say?

My guess is they will have an "alternative explanation".

It's always kinda handy to have one of them to fallback on!!

http://www.history.com/news/did-neanderthals-die-out-much-earlier-than-we-thought

As part of the study, which appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), an international team of scientists re-examined previously tested animal fossils from Neanderthal-era sites in southern Iberia (modern-day Spain), a region believed to have been one of the last refuges for Neanderthals before their extinction. The team was led by Oxford University’s Thomas Hingham and Rachel Wood from the Australian National University at Canberra.

Earlier tests had dated the bones to around 35,000 years old—providing a 7,000-year overlap between Neanderthals and the first Homo sapiens, who arrived 42,000 years ago. This time around, however, the samples were tested utilizing a new technology, known as “ultrafiltration,” which removes carbon molecules and other contaminations from bone samples, allowing for a more accurate radio carbon dating, particularly of collagen. Scientists collected 215 samples from 11 different Spanish sites, but in the end were only able to extract testable collagen from eight of them. It is not uncommon for ultrafiltration testing to lead to improved methods of dating, but the results of these tests shocked even the research team—they indicated that Neanderthals disappeared from the region 50,000 years ago—15,000 years earlier than previously thought. Wood noted, “At other sites in Europe, we have seen that this improved method of dating bone makes a difference, making old bones older. However, we do not normally see such consistently large differences.” If true, that would make it nearly impossible for them to have interbred with Homo sapiens, who had not yet arrived on the scene. In fact, there’s an outside chance the fossils may be even older—50,000 years is the upper limit for radio carbon dating.

The study is not without its detractors. Some scientists have expressed concern over the relatively small sample size, while others point out that ultrafiltration testing at a different Spanish site, Cueva Antón, actually confirmed the original dating of 35,000 years old. However, Higham and Wood’s team believe that Cueva Antón was most likely settled by Homo sapiens and not Neanderthals, which explains the younger fossils found there.

So, if modern man and Neanderthals met and mated, when—and where—did it happen? The study makes clear that this new theory does not rule out the possibility of interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, just that it seems highly unlikely to have occurred in this part of Europe, as previously believed. Instead, the intermingling of the two species probably happened much earlier, either while the two groups were still in their native Africa, or when both had begun their migrations into the Mediterranean or what is now the Middle East.

 

And here I thought THIS science was provable fact and absolute, they sure seem to use the word "beleive" alot.
 
Hey doesn;t faith in a higher power have a lot to do with "beleiving" something?     

I guess it all depends on ones "definition" of belief/beleiving.

 I noticed multi never really addressses the "probably happened" "previously beleived" "nearly impossible" "outside chance"  "new theory" that his "improved" science has come up with.  

And here I was beginning to beleive they had it all figured out with the nice pictures of giraffes and all.

I think I'll keep hedging my bet and maintain my faith, at least until someone explains the morality "theory" of male alligators eating their young.

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

These "arrival times" seem really really short, considering the amount of change required to evolve sapiens (incredible brain change, etc.)

Thought it takes millions of years for this slow process to affect change.

It's all quite contradictory.

 

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

I am confused. What about that study leads you to think it discredits the theory of evolution?

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

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

57,000 years ago we "appeared". Seems like a blink in time in evolutionary terms. If "we" are that new, you'd think we'd be considerably different than the ancient greeks. But their writings and sculptures seem spot on matches to us.

Is Ice Man different than us genetically? If not, why? If we can so suddenly appear on the scene it seems that evolution can and does move fast, but at same time doesn't.

That confuses me.

 

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

                                                                                                                         

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

espringers Said:
I am confused. What about that study leads you to think it discredits the theory of evolution?

Where did I make the claim ever in these discussions that "evolution" does not take place?

I have "discredited" for me personally the idea people like multi have whereby we crawled our way out of a premodial sludge as a single cell organism.

Do I beleive we "evolved" from apes? No.

There are too many  "beleifs" and "likelyhoods" and "possibilities"  as well as 180 degree reversals in science for me to "beleive" the "possiblities" or "likelyhood" of claims such as these.

Besides my faith allows me to beleive differently.

Espringers as a lawyer, do these red words inspire a standard of irrefutable fact?

After all science itself admits carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years so how do they determine these specific time periods in the "billions" of years people like multi claim evolution takes?

I am simply pointing out that the very "science" you guys deem as the end all know all is now questioning the very "science" you claim to place all your faith in because it is "provable". 

As I said I guess you can always pull out the "alternative explanation" that the first link mentions!

Now espringers exactly why do you "practice" a religion?  

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

gst Said:

Besides my faith allows me to beleive differently.

Well GST, I hate to admit it, but you're right.  that's the convenient thing about faith.  it cannot be affected by things like evidence, facts, and observations or even opinions.  Faith can allow anyone to believe whatever they want.

Enjoy it while it lasts, the type of faith you speak so highly of is fading at an exponential rate.

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

guywhofishes Said:
57,000 years ago we "appeared". Seems like a blink in time in evolutionary terms. If "we" are that new, you'd think we'd be considerably different than the ancient greeks. But their writings and sculptures seem spot on matches to us.

Is Ice Man different than us genetically? If not, why? If we can so suddenly appear on the scene it seems that evolution can and does move fast, but at same time doesn't.

That confuses me.

Guy, you take what you read too literally, and doesn't 57,000 years conflict with your history book?  "we appeared"  and that is less believable than "on the 6th day god created man"

modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing local populations of Homo erectus, Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis

Lets talk about dogs for a quick example.

Modern mitochondrial DNA tests show that domesticated dogs split from wolves about 100,000 years ago, but hard collaborative fossil evidence has only been found to 33,000 years ago.

now....does the above statement say chihuahuas APPEARED 33,000 years ago, just like magic?...no, and neither did humans.

Ok, lets say humans of today are red and somewhere in the blue is homo habilis, we weren't red 57,000 years ago, we did not "appear" magically.  your DNA holds those facts, the same facts that collaborate with the patterns of the known fossil record that we keep finding pieces of.  Africa is in your modern white man DNA, deny it all you want, your DNA does not lie.  it has your grandparents, and their grandparents, and their grandparents, and markers of all the genetic mutations, hair colors, eye colors, skin colors, genetic diseases, present in your guywhofishes DNA 

You can't believe that a 6'3" blonde haired blue eyed person just appeared 50 to 100 thousand years ago.  I know you believe in magic, but in this case there is evidence that spells out the events for you on an easy to understand timeline.  why do you keep refusing to look at it.  even though we are not classified as a different specie yet, we are different and further along in evolution than we were 57,000 years ago.

its of no concern to me or the real scientists that find and study this if you just close your eyes and plug your ears because thought processes like yours are fading fast.  it doesn't matter if you believe because it doesn't change the facts, it doesn't care if you observe it, it doesn't care if you're liberal or conservative.  the evidence is free to observe with no agenda behind it other than to spread knowledge, its not a conspiracy.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
Is Ice Man different than us genetically? If not, why? If we can so suddenly appear on the scene it seems that evolution can and does move fast, but at same time doesn't.

That confuses me

be more specific if you are requesting a specific answer.  but yes, "ice man" dna is different than mine and yours.  How different?  well which exact ice man are you reffering to.  if "ice man" was cloned today, even though it may be classified as a different specie or subspecie than sapiens, chances are its DNA is still close enough to successfully hybridize with sapiens.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:

gst Said:

Besides my faith allows me to beleive differently.

Well GST, I hate to admit it, but you're right.  that's the convenient thing about faith.  it cannot be affected by things like evidence, facts, and observations or even opinions.  Faith can allow anyone to believe whatever they want.

Multi remember this" I can  beleive anything I want" statement about alligators and morals??

"The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

Apparently you have some experience in "beleiving anything you want"

I guess you can always fall back on your "alternative explanation" in science right?

Enjoy it while it lasts, the type of faith you speak so highly of is fading at an exponential rate.

Multi, you seem to enjoy this beleif don;t you? What exactly happened that you hold such a disdain for religion?

Why not answer a few questions about the "science" and the words "beleive" 
"likelyhood"   and  my favorite "possibly"  as they relate to your scientific "evidence and facts"?

I mean if they are making these kinds of corrections now in science, what others will we see down the road?

Are you sure you want to go with "fact and evidence" when talking science of where  and how mankind was created

So is your "faith" that mankind emerged as a creepy crawly one celled creature from the swamp based on "possible" scientific  "evidence"  or  rather a scientific "likelyhood" based on what someone "beleives" is "fact" ?

You get a little teste when people question YOUR "belief" or faith in the "likelyhood" of the "possiblility" that todays science says is "fact".

You speak of change, speak to what changes happen every day to reverse your "scientific fact" regarding everything from global warming to eggs killing you.

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

MSA, you are one arrogant $#%. You really truly are.

 

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

This is funny. Still questioning one the most widely accepted scientific theories in the history of mankind I see. Good luck w that.

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

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

 I'm confused guy... Do you deny that all the other human like species and their fossils exist?  Or do you deny the relationships we have to them in chronological order that DNA analysis and sequencing has shown?

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

 where does homo erectus fit into creationism?  Where do the billions of extinct species have room to live at the same time on earth if not for evolution and science explaining their places and times of existence?

Homo erectus existed, science answers how, where, when, and why.  What is creationisms explanation, where is erectus in the 6,000 year timeline of the bible.

Wait let me guess....Satan put homo erectus fossils on earth to test our faith.

Keep in mind I am using homo erectus as a simple example to represent hundreds of hominid species.

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

espringers Said:
This is funny. Still questioning one the most widely accepted scientific theories in the history of mankind I see. Good luck w that.

espringers, you claim you "practice" religion, why?

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

Hey MSA. Go piss up a rope you condescending PRICK.

 

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

 haha, ok....but seriously, do you believe species like homo erectus existed? 

If you don't believe species like this and other fossil evidence is real, then the conversation is over.

If you do believe these species once existed, explain how they (all of them) fit into your beliefs and the timelines of young earth creation.

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

I find it abit amusing that espringers blindly accepts this science and condemns those that are "skeptic" about mankind crawling out of the swamp , but yet then turns around and "practices" religion.

I mean it is pretty clear that multi does not "practice" religion, something must have happened to turned him against it and to have such a hatred for it.

But I can;t help but wonder why espringers would "practice" something he must beleive is a lie if he accepts multis claims of mankind "evolving" from some organism over billions of years.

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

 

multi-species-angler Said:
 haha, ok....but seriously, do you believe species like homo erectus existed? 

If you don't believe species like this and other fossil evidence is real, then the conversation is over.

If you do believe these species once existed, explain how they (all of them) fit into your beliefs and the timelines of young earth creation.

I'm also interested to hear the gst answer to these questions

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

multi-species-angler Said:
 haha, ok....but seriously, do you believe species like homo erectus existed? 

If you don't believe species like this and other fossil evidence is real, then the conversation is over.

If you do believe these species once existed, explain how they (all of them) fit into your beliefs and the timelines of young earth creation.

exact;y what do you know besides goggle information and human interpretation of what "timelines" are a part of the Bible?

Just like arrogant scientists that beleive they "know" everything, there are theologians that arrogantly beleive they know everything as well.

Perhaps you should stick to talking about morals in alligators multi.

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

 yes or no gst....did those species exist or not?

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

Guy, GST, are these species belonging to our genus real or fake?  if you do not believe in their existence, then what is your explanation of how they did or didn't exist?

Homo gautengensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo floresiensis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo cepranensis
Denisovans (scientific name has not yet been assigned)
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens idaltu
Archaic Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
Red Deer Cave people (scientific name has not yet been assigned, perhaps a race of modern humans or a hybrid of modern humans and Denisovans

 

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Multi,

Study the "myth" of the Flood a bit and you'll see compelling evidence against the Evolution Theory.  God had to wipe the slate clean. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the current Earth being only 6 grand or so but it doesn't take millions of years to produce a fossil.  Animals were found fossilized(sp) after the Mt St. Helens eruption.  A gold bracelet was found imbedded in a coal vein in a mine.

I could go on but will be brief. As I said before, much evidence supporting the Bible is purposely hidden and tainted by whackjobs.  If you don't want to watch "Ancient Aliens" ( I don't agree with their agenda BTW) do some searches on "Forbidden" Archealogy(sp).  I know plenty about your side of things since middle school and don't accept the premise.

 Nuke the Whales

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

 

svnmag Said:
Multi,

Study the "myth" of the Flood a bit and you'll see compelling evidence against the Evolution Theory.  God had to wipe the slate clean. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the current Earth being only 6 grand or so but it doesn't take millions of years to produce a fossil.  Animals were found fossilized(sp) after the Mt St. Helens eruption.  A gold bracelet was found imbedded in a coal vein in a mine.

I could go on but will be brief. As I said before, much evidence supporting the Bible is purposely hidden and tainted by whackjobs.  If you don't want to watch "Ancient Aliens" ( I don't agree with their agenda BTW) do some searches on "Forbidden" Archealogy(sp).  I know plenty about your side of things since middle school and don't accept the premise.

Svnmag, I respect your skepticism, and skepticism keeps science in check and under constant review.

What you're suggesting aren't really theories, they are hypothesis.  But yes I am familiar with them, however, much like the ancient alien theories, they are supported by very few people with very little interpretational untestable evidence.

Yes you are correct about fossils, but what you fail to realize is not all fossils are created equal, some form quickly, some take eons.  And they are all distributed in correspondence with earths 4.5 billion year old geological timeline.


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

 what I find hard to believe is that you believe the small amounts of interpretational evidence that supports just a few of the off the wall hypothesis and loosely labelled theories like the flood myth or ancient aliens, but you guys completly deny the vast mountains of fossil evidence under constant review and tests by the entire global scientific community, and all of the DNA evidence that collaborates it.

Help me understand, because when you ask questions about a homo habilis fossil with a young earth creationist view, you don't get answers that make any sense.

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

 one quick example of a very recent correction in one evolution theory.  We used to know of 2 species of venomous lizards, then we discovered that the komodo monitor was venomous, then found all monitors were venomous, and now we know that thousands of lizard species have vestigial venom apparatus.

So, our previous understanding of snake evolution was that venom evolved after snakes evolved from lizards.  Now, because of lots of new evidence, and DNA analysis, and repeated reviews we know that snakes and lizards share common venomous ancestors.

So yes, I completely understand that science is not infallible and is not always right, BUT! The data is corrected and changed with new evidence.

So anyone who claims evolution is not real and does not happen, please present your evidence to the world for review.

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

Gst, I've already explained to you I am going to offer you know information about my belief system nor the extent to which I practice or don't practice a religion regardless of how relevant you may think it is to the conversation or debate. Sorry. For me, that is about as personal of information as I am willing to share with anyone.

I will say this though... I do not think that believing evolution was and is real negates the possibility of or ability to believe in or hope for something more.

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

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

Years ago when I went to college the professors taught us that it was important to preserve the integrity of science. Then when the politicians got involved it became apparent they had pet projects. If you wrote your research proposal with the right words in it (for example testing global warming) you increased your chance of funding. Liberal politicians have been busy degrading society for some time. So through their influence they manipulated science. Unfortunately one of the consequences is a loss of scientific integrity.

Years ago those professors taught us that anything you can not prove is a theory. Contrary to the opinion of some I am not older than Darwin. HIs theory was alive and well while I was in college, but professors kept it in the correct context. Today self proclaimed intellectuals want to change what theory means. Why?

I can't remember where to find an old post on nodakoutdoors, but it goes something like : if a conservative doesn't want a gun he doesn't buy one, if a liberal doesn't want a gun he wants to outlaw them for everyone, etc etc etc. Evolution fits into the liberal mentality this way: If a conservative doesn't believe on God he doesn't go to church, if a liberal doesn't believe in God he tries to take everyone to hell with him. End of lesson.

Pages