Do You Believe In Evolution?

[Sentinel X]

the variance in genetic information in humans is alot less than most species actually. and also we can all mate and get viable offspring.

I know but donkeys and horses can mate and have an offspring, Bengal tigers and siberian tigers, etc

Of course there isn't much of a genetic difference between you and I (assuming we share a different race) but some races are more susceptible to genetic diseases than others and more!


Im also curious to know what each race will evolve into a million years into the future (assuming we even make it that far ).

 

[Danalys]

that's where the word viable comes in. ligers for example do not survive in the wild they do not go on to fill a neiche. mules are sterile so they will not propogate.

as for the future, the spread of the various races over the world (so they are not geographically distant,) means that the races will not grow apart, in fact they are more likely to mix into a raceless homogeny.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I have news for you, you don't know that the Bible is true you simply believe it.

That's where trusting something (or Someone) more than human intelligence comes in. Natural phenomena can be verified through visual observation and study...but since God is invisible to the naked eye, His existence must be approached first through the spirit, not just the mind. After that, we can see His handiwork in nature, but we will always be limited when compared to Him.

On certain levels, humans can only understand and comprehend so much about God, because we are mortal. We are bound by time and space; He is not. God is higher, more powerful, and vastly more intelligent than any of us...so on that basis, how could we hope to understand Him in total, with just our mortal mind? We can't; He gives us the knowledge and information we need to trust and have faith in Him, but not necessarily to finish the "great puzzle" on our own. After all, if we were capable of doing everything by ourselves, we wouldn't need God. As a responsible and just Father and Creator, God has made sure we'd have to come to Him for various things.

Now, let me explain this: God is not stupid, and as a race, neither are we. He was brilliant enough to make us in His own image, but sin corrupted our nature, in more ways than one. It's very likely that humans were much more skilled (and had greater insight) thousands of years ago, than we are today. The pyramids of Egypt are just one possible example of how advanced "pre-modern" humans really were.

People who believe the Earth is billions of years old are using evidence from seperate parts of the Earth at seperate times that have been tested and retested to come to the conclusion that the Earth is probably really old.

If you're referring to the rock layers and such, then answer this: how can upright trees be found, passing through multiple layers, and they're intact? If each rock layer were truly "billions of years old", those trees would've withered away eons ago. for that matter, why is the same type of rock often found in separate layers? Limestone, for example, has been found at different depths, and scientists say, "well, this layer is 50 million years old, and this one is 300 million". They contain the exact same minerals, so how is that feasibly possible?

You are coming to the conclusion that the Earth is 10,000 years old based on ONE book.

No, I am coming to the conclusion that the Earth is probably 6,000 years old (give or take a few hundred), based on scientifically provable evidence, in addition to Scripture.

 

[Bubonic]

One quick question I always had about evolution, to anyone who has studied the subject:
Why are ALL human beings classified as Homo Sapien...why aren't there different names for different races?

I KNOW we are all one (so save that speech for me, please ) and that we all share a common ancestor, blah, blah, blah however each race is different from one another...is it just to be politically 'correct' or is there actual distinct names but I just cant find them?

This is was the race concept is a biologically invalid one to begin with.
The differences are really arbitrary and represent slight gradial adaptations to different ecological circumstances, we'd only name others differently if they were so different that we could no longer interbreed.

The race concept has no biological validity.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

No, I am coming to the conclusion that the Earth is probably 6,000 years old (give or take a few hundred), based on scientifically provable evidence, in addition to Scripture.

Then explain how the earliest Australopithecus afarensis remains (Lucy) are 3.2 billion years old. Or the frozen mammoth which is around 37,000 years old.

 

[Franklin Richards]

They don't "believe" in Carbon Dating.


Convenient.

 

[Sentinel X]

that's where the word viable comes in. ligers for example do not survive in the wild they do not go on to fill a neiche. mules are sterile so they will not propogate.

as for the future, the spread of the various races over the world (so they are not geographically distant,) means that the races will not grow apart, in fact they are more likely to mix into a raceless homogeny.

Oh true, for some strange reason I forgot about mules not being able to breed. But Im sure Bengal/Siberian Tiger cub breeds can...or maybe they cant, nevermind...Im not too sure about that.

Thanks anyway.

This is was the race concept is a biologically invalid one to begin with.
The differences are really arbitrary and represent slight gradial adaptations to different ecological circumstances, we'd only name others differently if they were so different that we could no longer interbreed.

The race concept has no biological validity.

Thanks #2

On a tangent, this reminds me of H.G well's book the Time Machine. Basically the time traveller goes far into the future where some humans lived in the underground (caves and maybe sewers) while some lived on land...the ones who lived underground evolved into creepy pallid goblin looking creatures (kind of like in the movie the descent) and those above ground evolved into smaller versions of modern humans except everyone was dark-skinned.
I thought that was pretty cool and interesting

Okay back on topic...

 

[Majic Walrus]

That's where trusting something (or Someone) more than human intelligence comes in. Natural phenomena can be verified through visual observation and study...but since God is invisible to the naked eye, His existence must be approached first through the spirit, not just the mind. After that, we can see His handiwork in nature, but we will always be limited when compared to Him.

:facepalm

Natural phenomena can be verified through visual observation and study, but God's word can't be verified. Period. Spiritual verifications are as useful as an acid trip through Disney World.

On certain levels, humans can only understand and comprehend so much about God, because we are mortal. We are bound by time and space; He is not. God is higher, more powerful, and vastly more intelligent than any of us...so on that basis, how could we hope to understand Him in total, with just our mortal mind? We can't; He gives us the knowledge and information we need to trust and have faith in Him, but not necessarily to finish the "great puzzle" on our own. After all, if we were capable of doing everything by ourselves, we wouldn't need God. As a responsible and just Father and Creator, God has made sure we'd have to come to Him for various things.

So you trust and have faith because you don't KNOW.

Now, let me explain this: God is not stupid, and as a race, neither are we. He was brilliant enough to make us in His own image, but sin corrupted our nature, in more ways than one. It's very likely that humans were much more skilled (and had greater insight) thousands of years ago, than we are today. The pyramids of Egypt are just one possible example of how advanced "pre-modern" humans really were.

Or equally plausible, they are an example of how aliens came down through magic circles called Stargates and taught us all how to be really advanced.

If you're referring to the rock layers and such, then answer this: how can upright trees be found, passing through multiple layers, and they're intact? If each rock layer were truly "billions of years old", those trees would've withered away eons ago. for that matter, why is the same type of rock often found in separate layers? Limestone, for example, has been found at different depths, and scientists say, "well, this layer is 50 million years old, and this one is 300 million". They contain the exact same minerals, so how is that feasibly possible?

No, I am coming to the conclusion that the Earth is probably 6,000 years old (give or take a few hundred), based on scientifically provable evidence, in addition to Scripture.

I'm not referring to rock layers at all. I'm referring to carbon dating.

 

[Bubonic]

Moviefan2k4's mind is narrower then Hank Hill's urethra.

 

[Carcharodon]

Oh true, for some strange reason I forgot about mules not being able to breed. But Im sure Bengal/Siberian Tiger cub breeds can...or maybe they cant, nevermind...Im not too sure about that.

Breaking my slience to make this point: by the definition of a biological species, if two animals can mate and produce viable offspring AND if they are able to mate in nature under normal circumstances, then they are of the same species.

The only circumstances under which the two tigers you mentioned could mate would be most likely due to human interference (as they occupy very different global regions/habitats and being geologically separated), so even if they could produce viable offspring, they are not automatically considered the same species.

Just wanted to throw that in there.

 

[Carcharodon]

Then explain how the earliest Australopithecus afarensis remains (Lucy) are 3.2 billion years old.

...did you mean million?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Such a visually-referenced phenomena would be required to conclusively prove the existence of evolution.

But that is not how it works, so your asking for something thats completely outside the rules in itself.

Both of these species were still fish though, correct? That's micro-evolution, not macro. I'm all for animals bringing forth new species, but therei lies another problem.

yes... like i said, it would take possibly hundreds of years for the species to become another one. Look if your looking for "missing links" between species and really want me to dig the web, i can find you amphibians and other animals that cross the lizard/fish type debate. I don't believe an entire species change happens over night. Macro evolution to me is a lumped some of micro evolution.

What's not reasonable is science's current theories that say animals change from kind to kind (which no one has ever observed). You've never seen a horse give birth to anything but a horse. A bird has never reproduced anything but another bird. There are variations within the kinds, but that's the limit of it.

[/QUOTE] like i've said, evolution doesnt happen over night man. it slowly happens. it deals with fish slowly growing legs (still a fish though) but eventually walking on land and losing it's gills and growing lungs... is it a fish anymore? nope.. either an amphibian or reptile... then slowly growing feathers, a beak, talons, o look its a bird now.. these changes would take hundreds of years to complete, nothing overnight. And quite frankly i've never heard of evolution being explained by having a single species become another species over night. so i really don't know where your getting that from.

 

[Hotwire]

That's where trusting something (or Someone) more than human intelligence comes in. Natural phenomena can be verified through visual observation and study...but since God is invisible to the naked eye, His existence must be approached first through the spirit, not just the mind. After that, we can see His handiwork in nature, but we will always be limited when compared to Him.

On certain levels, humans can only understand and comprehend so much about God, because we are mortal. We are bound by time and space; He is not. God is higher, more powerful, and vastly more intelligent than any of us...so on that basis, how could we hope to understand Him in total, with just our mortal mind? We can't; He gives us the knowledge and information we need to trust and have faith in Him, but not necessarily to finish the "great puzzle" on our own. After all, if we were capable of doing everything by ourselves, we wouldn't need God. As a responsible and just Father and Creator, God has made sure we'd have to come to Him for various things.

Now, let me explain this: God is not stupid, and as a race, neither are we. He was brilliant enough to make us in His own image, but sin corrupted our nature, in more ways than one. It's very likely that humans were much more skilled (and had greater insight) thousands of years ago, than we are today. The pyramids of Egypt are just one possible example of how advanced "pre-modern" humans really were.

If you're referring to the rock layers and such, then answer this: how can upright trees be found, passing through multiple layers, and they're intact? If each rock layer were truly "billions of years old", those trees would've withered away eons ago. for that matter, why is the same type of rock often found in separate layers? Limestone, for example, has been found at different depths, and scientists say, "well, this layer is 50 million years old, and this one is 300 million". They contain the exact same minerals, so how is that feasibly possible?

No, I am coming to the conclusion that the Earth is probably 6,000 years old (give or take a few hundred), based on scientifically provable evidence, in addition to Scripture.

Um, dinosaurs, dude. Seriously, your ignorance is staggering

 

[Hotwire]

What's not reasonable is science's current theories that say animals change from kind to kind (which no one has ever observed). You've never seen a horse give birth to anything but a horse. A bird has never reproduced anything but another bird. There are variations within the kinds, but that's the limit of it.

If she mated with a male donkey, she gave birth to a mule. And that has been witnessed many times.

 

[Carcharodon]

If she mated with a male donkey, she gave birth to a mule. And that has been witnessed many times.

While his argument does hint at mental ******ation, this isn't really a viable counter-argument in terms of the larger debate because those mules can't reproduce.

 

[Hotwire]

While his argument does hint at mental ******ation, this isn't really a viable counter-argument in terms of the larger debate because those mules can't reproduce.

Yeah, but he said, "anything". And while I'm sure he meant, "anything that can also produce offspring", he didn't say that so I'm still chalking this up as a point. All be it a small one.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Then explain how the earliest Australopithecus afarensis remains (Lucy) are 3.2 billion years old.

The infamous "Lucy" skeleton was discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia. As many can tell you, the supposed "leg bone" of that skeleton was found over 1.5 miles away from the rest of it, and 200 feet further down! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "Lucy" is no common link. As for carbon dating and such, see this next one...

Or the frozen mammoth which is around 37,000 years old.

There have been instances where the skin of a mammoth and the bones of the same mammoth were dated as being different ages. Those results alone prove that such methods are virtually useless.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

If she mated with a male donkey, she gave birth to a mule. And that has been witnessed many times.

Mules, horses, and donkeys are all the same kind of animal; they're just different species. Similarly, the calico housecat, bobcat, and tiger are all felines. Same kind, different species.

 

[Hotwire]

The infamous "Lucy" skeleton was discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia. As many can tell you, the supposed "leg bone" of that skeleton was found over 1.5 miles away from the rest of it, and 200 feet further down! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "Lucy" is no common link. As for carbon dating and such, see this next one...

There have been instances where the skin of a mammoth and the bones of the same mammoth were dated as being different ages. Those results alone prove that such methods are virtually useless.

And there have been quotes in the Bible, and then, many pages later, another quote, from the same God, contradictiing the first. These results alone prove the Bible useless.

Funny how your arguements against evolution, after some slight rewording, work against religion as well.

 

[chaseter]

Moviefan...please answer my question. Do you have an education higher than grade school (K-12)?

 

[Hotwire]

Mules, horses, and donkeys are all the same kind of animal; they're just different species. Similarly, the calico housecat, bobcat, and tiger are all felines. Same kind, different species.

Yes, but a mule is not a horse.

 

[Danalys]

heh the thing about lucy bones is completely made up. even Hovind himself says he no longer advocates such things (refering to that claim and others) anymore.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Moviefan...please answer my question. Do you have an education higher than grade school (K-12)?

Technically speaking, no, because I did not traditionally graduate high school. I did however, take my GED exam in 2000, and I went to college for a year (2002-2003) as well. I've also learned many things through reading both books and various Web articles, watching historical documentaries, that sort of thing. I'm certainly no Einstein, but I think my knowledge is pretty well rounded.

 

[black_dust]

Moviefan2k4 makes me laugh, Hes going to be so disappointed when he dies

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Yes, but a mule is not a horse.

Mules, donkeys, and horses are all part of the same kind of animal. They may be different species, but their differences aren't significant enough to be considered an entirely different kind.

Carp, tuna, salmon, bass, and trout are all different species as well, but they're also all fish, which is a set kind.