Crazy thought i just had...(religion)

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

seriously, i don't want to give you an answer because i am not a sheik, and my answer may be wrong and could spread and i could give false information. So please inquire on an islamic forum, do not leave islam and move on with life please do this for me and research islamhishkarnib

I have researched it and it goes against everything in christianity and Judaism. Im not even apart of Islam >.>

looks like this thread kind of exploded in your face Dustman. I don't agree that natural selection will eradicate religion simply because religion is a corner stone of mankind's social structure. It plays a big role in adaptation so it will survive.

Oh and I facepalmed when I read 13625 and SonKev's posts, seriously guys get your stuff straight. Good luck dealing with them.

domatron23

I thought the same thing about religions role in adaption, it was just a thought i had.I wanted to share but it indeed ended up blowing up in my face.

looks like this thread kind of exploded in your face Dustman. I don't agree that natural selection will eradicate religion simply because religion is a corner stone of mankind's social structure. It plays a big role in adaptation so it will survive.

Oh and I facepalmed when I read 13625 and SonKev's posts, seriously guys get your stuff straight. Good luck dealing with them.

domatron23

LOL, Thanks for the contribution...

can i ask you a personal question?

how old are you?

if you don't want to answer i totally understand

[QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

ConkerAndBerri2

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

can i ask you a personal question?

how old are you?

if you don't want to answer i totally understand

hishkarnib

I suspect that he might be around 14 or 15.

can i ask you a personal question?

how old are you?

if you don't want to answer i totally understand

hishkarnib

Im 16 but it doesnt change the fact that islam goes against christianitys and Judaisms main teaching.

[QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

So your basically choosing to believe in myths over truth because it sounds better to you?

[QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]

123625

Link, and tell me how many have we found exactly?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I really don't feel like reading an entire book please give me a link to a website showing all the transitional fossils in between different kinds.

I'll post some of the stuff from Reinh's "are we superior beings" thread.

First of all you make the point that every "transitional" fossil I have presented so far is either some sort of ape or a human. There are a few things wrong with this but before we get into that lets first examine what a normal ape and human skull looks like.

On the left is a chimpanzee skull and on the right is a human skull. Chimpanzees are acknowledged to be the closest living ancestor of humans, they are phylogenetically more similar to humans then they are to apes and they are also the second most intelligent species on earth. Most importantly though the chimpanzee is the most similar to a human in terms of skull morphology. Here's a picture of a gorilla skull to make that point obvious to you.

If anyone was going to mistake an ape skull for a transitional skull then it would most likely be that of the chimpanzee, not the gorilla. That being said the figures you and the website your provided now become skewed. You provided the maximum cranial capacity of an adult male gorilla as 725cc. However if we are concerning ourselves with morphological similarity (which is what your "transitional fossils are just apes" claim is all about) then we should be examining the skull capacity of the chimpanzee which is on average 390cc. So the difference in capacity between modern humans and the animal most morphologically similar to us is not 350cc but more like 750cc.

Cranial capacity isn't the only thing to be aware of when examining transitional fossils though. Make sure that you also take into account the teeth, the supraorbital torus (eyebrow ridges) and the position of the foramen magnum. There are many other features of the skull but these two are visually obvious. Right, now that you know the facts you can look at the evidence and come up with your own justified conclusion which I would like you to share with me.

These are the fossils that your websites have not dealt with. I would like your own opinion on them and whether or not you think they are human, ape or a transition between the two.

STS 5 485cc 2.6mya

KNM ER 1813 510cc 1.9mya(right)

KNM-ER 3733 850cc 1.7mya(below)

KNM ER 1470(775cc) 1.8mya

KNM ER 3883(804cc) 1.5mya

KNM WT 15000 (880cc) 1.6mya

Now I'm just going to assume that you have said to yourself that all of these fossils are either just deformed apes or deformed humans. If you are going to take this stance then you must also justify why no normal anatomically correct human skulls have been in the same time period as these skulls (which you have failed to do twice now). Lets take KNM-ER 3733 as an example. You yourself conceded that it was just a "somewhat deformed human". The problem with this is that KNM-ER 3733 is 1,700,000 years old. By your reasoning humans have been around since at least 1.7 million years and yet anatomically correct human skulls did not appear in the fossil record until 195,000 years ago. This leaves you with a gap of about 1.5 million years during which many extremely deformed humans were fossilized into the "transitional fossils" we are discussing now. In this same gap must have existed billions of normal humans who did not get fossilized at all. Now given the extreme abundance of normal looking people and the extreme scarcity of people who could look like a half ape/half man you must concede that a scenario where all transitional fossils are just deformed humans is incredibly unlikely and ridiculous.

Secondly you point towards the fact that chimpanzees and gorillas and humans exist today but the species represented by the fossils I have presented do not. This is a point brought up by people who simply don't understand how human evolution was supposed to work. You have misunderstood two things here 1. You have supposed that given the same amount of time any two species will evolve to the same extent 2. You have supposed that living humans are directly descended from living chimpanzees/apes.

I think that your confusion over point 1. is partially due to my poorly worded argument about "selective pressures" a few posts ago. I apologise for this and I will restate my argument in a much clearer way. The key thing you must understand here is that evolution is not a continuous process that applies to all animal under all circumstances because natural selection will not make a significant impact on a species that is well adapted to a static environment. Apes are well adapted to their jungle environment, they have no problem surviving (disregarding human interference in the last few centuries) and as such there was no need for any morphological changes. Humans were a different story. Evolutionary theory states that modern humans are adapted the way we are today so that we could survive in a flat, hot, predatory environment such as the African Savannah. The reason why humans evolved when apes did not is because their environment changed which altered the way natural selection applied to them. Humans had to develop intelligence, apes did not.

I mention point two because it relates to my grandfather analogy which you said didn't fit. The key point for you to understand here is that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor. Chimpanzees are our cousins whereas the ape/men I have presented are our direct descendants. As such it makes sense for chimps to still exist while ape/men don't given that humans evolved and chimps did not.

Sorry if that doesn't all make sense. It's kind of out of context but there you go, transitional fossils.

[QUOTE="hishkarnib"]

can i ask you a personal question?

how old are you?

if you don't want to answer i totally understand

xxDustmanxx

I suspect that he might be around 14 or 15.

With your remarks I would guess that to be around your age...

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

SonKev

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

xxDustmanxx

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

So your basically choosing to believe in myths over truth because it sounds better to you?

I have researched Islam and quite frankly i find it quite contradictionary (spelt wrong)

Don't just assume please, i do research on these things alot.

religion isn't myths. infact, evolution has proved to be wronghishkarnib

Where.

[QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

xxDustmanxx

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Read the second part of my post.

[QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

xxDustmanxx

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]

domatron23

Link, and tell me how many have we found exactly?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I really don't feel like reading an entire book please give me a link to a website showing all the transitional fossils in between different kinds.

I'll post some of the stuff from Reinh's "are we superior beings" thread.

First of all you make the point that every "transitional" fossil I have presented so far is either some sort of ape or a human. There are a few things wrong with this but before we get into that lets first examine what a normal ape and human skull looks like.

On the left is a chimpanzee skull and on the right is a human skull. Chimpanzees are acknowledged to be the closest living ancestor of humans, they are phylogenetically more similar to humans then they are to apes and they are also the second most intelligent species on earth. Most importantly though the chimpanzee is the most similar to a human in terms of skull morphology. Here's a picture of a gorilla skull to make that point obvious to you.

If anyone was going to mistake an ape skull for a transitional skull then it would most likely be that of the chimpanzee, not the gorilla. That being said the figures you and the website your provided now become skewed. You provided the maximum cranial capacity of an adult male gorilla as 725cc. However if we are concerning ourselves with morphological similarity (which is what your "transitional fossils are just apes" claim is all about) then we should be examining the skull capacity of the chimpanzee which is on average 390cc. So the difference in capacity between modern humans and the animal most morphologically similar to us is not 350cc but more like 750cc.

Cranial capacity isn't the only thing to be aware of when examining transitional fossils though. Make sure that you also take into account the teeth, the supraorbital torus (eyebrow ridges) and the position of the foramen magnum. There are many other features of the skull but these two are visually obvious. Right, now that you know the facts you can look at the evidence and come up with your own justified conclusion which I would like you to share with me.

These are the fossils that your websites have not dealt with. I would like your own opinion on them and whether or not you think they are human, ape or a transition between the two.

STS 5 485cc 2.6mya

KNM ER 1813 510cc 1.9mya(right)

KNM-ER 3733 850cc 1.7mya(below)

KNM ER 1470(775cc) 1.8mya

KNM ER 3883(804cc) 1.5mya

KNM WT 15000 (880cc) 1.6mya

Now I'm just going to assume that you have said to yourself that all of these fossils are either just deformed apes or deformed humans. If you are going to take this stance then you must also justify why no normal anatomically correct human skulls have been in the same time period as these skulls (which you have failed to do twice now). Lets take KNM-ER 3733 as an example. You yourself conceded that it was just a "somewhat deformed human". The problem with this is that KNM-ER 3733 is 1,700,000 years old. By your reasoning humans have been around since at least 1.7 million years and yet anatomically correct human skulls did not appear in the fossil record until 195,000 years ago. This leaves you with a gap of about 1.5 million years during which many extremely deformed humans were fossilized into the "transitional fossils" we are discussing now. In this same gap must have existed billions of normal humans who did not get fossilized at all. Now given the extreme abundance of normal looking people and the extreme scarcity of people who could look like a half ape/half man you must concede that a scenario where all transitional fossils are just deformed humans is incredibly unlikely and ridiculous.

Secondly you point towards the fact that chimpanzees and gorillas and humans exist today but the species represented by the fossils I have presented do not. This is a point brought up by people who simply don't understand how human evolution was supposed to work. You have misunderstood two things here 1. You have supposed that given the same amount of time any two species will evolve to the same extent 2. You have supposed that living humans are directly descended from living chimpanzees/apes.

I think that your confusion over point 1. is partially due to my poorly worded argument about "selective pressures" a few posts ago. I apologise for this and I will restate my argument in a much clearer way. The key thing you must understand here is that evolution is not a continuous process that applies to all animal under all circumstances because natural selection will not make a significant impact on a species that is well adapted to a static environment. Apes are well adapted to their jungle environment, they have no problem surviving (disregarding human interference in the last few centuries) and as such there was no need for any morphological changes. Humans were a different story. Evolutionary theory states that modern humans are adapted the way we are today so that we could survive in a flat, hot, predatory environment such as the African Savannah. The reason why humans evolved when apes did not is because their environment changed which altered the way natural selection applied to them. Humans had to develop intelligence, apes did not.

I mention point two because it relates to my grandfather analogy which you said didn't fit. The key point for you to understand here is that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor. Chimpanzees are our cousins whereas the ape/men I have presented are our direct descendants. As such it makes sense for chimps to still exist while ape/men don't given that humans evolved and chimps did not.

Sorry if that doesn't all make sense. It's kind of out of context but there you go, transitional fossils.

Thanks, although they will surely ignore this.I found it to be a beneficial source of knowledge on evolution and transitional fossils.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

One evolution is not bad.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

Ravirr

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

One evolution is not bad.

What do you mean?

Foundation of evolution

abiogenesis - Scientists proposed proteins and nucleic acids evolved first and then later evolved into life. (That theory makes sense, since these two molecule groups are the primary building blocks of cellular and multicellular life.) However, as of this date, nobody has discovered any proof that proteins or nucleic acids could evolve from non life either.

And since the foundation is broken, the rest of the whole theory is garbage... why even look any further?

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

123625

Evolution=/=origin of life

[QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

One evolution is not bad.

What do you mean?

I see you agrue about evolution a lot. Its not bad, its doesn't disprove christianity in anysense at all. As to wether its the orgins of life we do not know. But evolution as changes in species does happen. Weather is phsyical or not. There are poisones frogs in swamps, only certain snakes can eat them. Over time, the frogs have gotten stronger poison and the snakes have had to adjust by getting stronger tolerance. Its evolution its achange over time. Its not bad.

[QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

domatron23

Evolution=/=origin of life

You're right, the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution,(which basically is chapter1 of evolution) so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed.

Im still skeptical about those fossils, They could be easily be different types of apes or monkeys that could of gone extinct.

Or they could be variations between kinds. (Not impossible)

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

SonKev

Evolution=/=origin of life

Your right , the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution, so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed

The big bang isn't bad either. It was thought up by a catholic priest.

[QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

Ravirr

Evolution=/=origin of life

Your right , the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution, so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed

The big bang isn't bad either. It was thought up by a catholic priest.

God spoke, and BANG it happened, yeah. whats it matter who thought it up, I dont even believe in catholicism, to many traditions ...lawl

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

Ravirr

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

One evolution is not bad.

What do you mean?

I see you agrue about evolution a lot. Its not bad, its doesn't disprove christianity in anysense at all. As to wether its the orgins of life we do not know. But evolution as changes in species does happen. Weather is phsyical or not. There are poisones frogs in swamps, only certain snakes can eat them. Over time, the frogs have gotten stronger poison and the snakes have had to adjust by getting stronger tolerance. Its evolution its achange over time. Its not bad.

I am going to tell you how Evolution and the bible cannot mix.

Bible (Word of god) says - Death came by man's sin.

Evoltuion says - Evolution came by Death.

[QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

SonKev

Evolution=/=origin of life

Your right , the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution, so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed

The big bang isn't bad either. It was thought up by a catholic priest.

God spoke, and BANG it happened, yeah. whats it matter who thought it up, I dont even believe in catholicism, to many traditions ...lawl

Alrighty, the problem is there seems to be a conflict between religion has sience within this thread. Sorry if you weren't aluding to that. I am tired and I tend to selectively read :P

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

Ravirr

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

One evolution is not bad.

What do you mean?

I see you agrue about evolution a lot. Its not bad, its doesn't disprove christianity in anysense at all. As to wether its the orgins of life we do not know. But evolution as changes in species does happen. Weather is phsyical or not. There are poisones frogs in swamps, only certain snakes can eat them. Over time, the frogs have gotten stronger poison and the snakes have had to adjust by getting stronger tolerance. Its evolution its achange over time. Its not bad.

You are talking about microevolution.

Evolution = macroevolution

[QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

One evolution is not bad.

What do you mean?

I see you agrue about evolution a lot. Its not bad, its doesn't disprove christianity in anysense at all. As to wether its the orgins of life we do not know. But evolution as changes in species does happen. Weather is phsyical or not. There are poisones frogs in swamps, only certain snakes can eat them. Over time, the frogs have gotten stronger poison and the snakes have had to adjust by getting stronger tolerance. Its evolution its achange over time. Its not bad.

I am going to tell you how Evolution and the bible cannot mix.

Bible (Word of god) says - Death came by man's sin.

Evoltuion says - Evolution came by Death.

I'm protestant(methodist), but I don't believe there is a conflict between science and religion. As I ahve read in genesis some of it aludes to a loose read of evolution. I don't have passages to quote its been awhile. Something along the nature of the ground gives rise to the plants and the plants give rise to animals (paraphrased and butchered but the message is still there) an explaination of evolution as teh scientific level of the communities wouldn't be possible. WHile I don't think genesis is literal. You may and I respect that. Then it seems we have a different opinion but non the less God bless :)

This just occured to me.In the end, wouldnt natural selection eventually get rid of religion?What i mean is, as we evolve as a species, our knowledge of the world will grow, in turn making the need for religious security obsolete.In the mean while the religious and superstitious will be off killing themselves in mass suicides, holy wars, and all together be rejected by the more intelligent society.In the end what some theists(Evolution through natural selection) hate most might be the one thing that ends up getting rid of them.

Just a thought.

xxDustmanxx

At their core, religion and knowledge don't oppose each other. In fact, knowledge just explains the details of how God did things; not disprove that God is.

Put that thought back in the oven and let it back some more :)

[QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ConkerAndBerri2"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

SonKev

Well you can either beleive that god started everything ( and possibly guided evolution )

Or you can beleive that God didnt help but instead we came from dead celled organisms.

Evolution still cant explain how life came from non-life, or nucleic acids came from non-life.

yeah, thats kind of a nobrainer im pretty sure that what abiogenesis is for.

Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

One evolution is not bad.

What do you mean?

I see you agrue about evolution a lot. Its not bad, its doesn't disprove christianity in anysense at all. As to wether its the orgins of life we do not know. But evolution as changes in species does happen. Weather is phsyical or not. There are poisones frogs in swamps, only certain snakes can eat them. Over time, the frogs have gotten stronger poison and the snakes have had to adjust by getting stronger tolerance. Its evolution its achange over time. Its not bad.

You are talking about microevolution.

Evolution = macroevolution

Its an example. I didn't say that was all evolution was

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

SonKev

Evolution=/=origin of life

You're right, the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution,(which basically is chapter1 of evolution) so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed.

What does the big bang have to do with anything? Evolution is just a change in inherited traits in a poplation of organisms over time. There doesn't have to be a naturalistic origin of life in order for evolution to be true. How life began is beyond the point here.

QUOTE

I'm protestant(methodist), but I don't believe there is a conflict between science and religion. As I ahve read in genesis some of it aludes to a loose read of evolution. I don't have passages to quote its been awhile. Something along the nature of the ground gives rise to the plants and the plants give rise to animals (paraphrased and butchered but the message is still there) an explaination of evolution as teh scientific level of the communities wouldn't be possible. WHile I don't think genesis is literal. You may and I respect that. Then it seems we have a different opinion but non the less God bless :)

QUOTE

I believe you, believe in deism, correct me if I'm wrong, The belief where God created the world, and left evolution to finish the job?

I'm protestant(methodist), but I don't believe there is a conflict between science and religion. As I ahve read in genesis some of it aludes to a loose read of evolution. I don't have passages to quote its been awhile. Something along the nature of the ground gives rise to the plants and the plants give rise to animals (paraphrased and butchered but the message is still there) an explaination of evolution as teh scientific level of the communities wouldn't be possible. WHile I don't think genesis is literal. You may and I respect that. Then it seems we have a different opinion but non the less God bless :)

Ravirr

Do you not see how the two completely contradict?

If we are to assume God made Evolution happen and the bible is still true this contradicts. Because It clearly states that death came by man's sin, meaning it could not of happened before because there was no death.

We cannot say it happened after either. Because if man evolved from apes it means death had to of come for them to evolve. How can Evolution occur about 10000 or so years after death has occured? Apparently to science it cannot.

But as long as you beleive in Jesus, i don't care. You will find the truth one day. God Bless

QUOTE

I'm protestant(methodist), but I don't believe there is a conflict between science and religion. As I ahve read in genesis some of it aludes to a loose read of evolution. I don't have passages to quote its been awhile. Something along the nature of the ground gives rise to the plants and the plants give rise to animals (paraphrased and butchered but the message is still there) an explaination of evolution as teh scientific level of the communities wouldn't be possible. WHile I don't think genesis is literal. You may and I respect that. Then it seems we have a different opinion but non the less God bless :)

QUOTE

I believe you, believe in deism, correct me if I'm wrong, The belief where God created the world, and left evolution to finish the job?

SonKev

Mm, I haven't read of deism. But my beliefs are with protestant christianty(sp) its late haha.

[QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

domatron23

Evolution=/=origin of life

You're right, the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution,(which basically is chapter1 of evolution) so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed.

What does the big bang have to do with anything? Evolution is just a change in inherited traits in a poplation of organisms over time. There doesn't have to be a naturalistic origin of life in order for evolution to be true. How life began is beyond the point here.

And because Evolution doesnt have a solid foundation for how life began how are we to trust it? All it gives us is abiogenesis which is so stupid (in my opinion)

Im still skeptical about those fossils, They could be easily be different types of apes or monkeys that could of gone extinct.

Or they could be variations between kinds. (Not impossible)

123625

Look through my post again, read the text, examine the fossils and tell me which ones you think are apes or monkeys. Why, if they are just random extinct species, do they show a progression towards a human skull in chronological order?

And "variation between kinds" is just evolution (unless I have misunderstood you).

[QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

domatron23

Evolution=/=origin of life

You're right, the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution,(which basically is chapter1 of evolution) so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed.

What does the big bang have to do with anything? Evolution is just a change in inherited traits in a poplation of organisms over time. There doesn't have to be a naturalistic origin of life in order for evolution to be true. How life began is beyond the point here.

Well every evolutionist I've talked to, uses the big bang to explain the start of evolution,

Back to my other arguement of why there is no foundation for the belief in evolution...

=========================================================================

"Foundation of evolution

abiogenesis - Scientists proposed proteins and nucleic acids evolved first and then later evolved into life. (That theory makes sense, since these two molecule groups are the primary building blocks of cellular and multicellular life.) However, as of this date, nobody has discovered any proof that proteins or nucleic acids could evolve from non life either.

And since the foundation is broken, the rest of the whole theory is garbage... why even look any further?"

[QUOTE="Ravirr"]

I'm protestant(methodist), but I don't believe there is a conflict between science and religion. As I ahve read in genesis some of it aludes to a loose read of evolution. I don't have passages to quote its been awhile. Something along the nature of the ground gives rise to the plants and the plants give rise to animals (paraphrased and butchered but the message is still there) an explaination of evolution as teh scientific level of the communities wouldn't be possible. WHile I don't think genesis is literal. You may and I respect that. Then it seems we have a different opinion but non the less God bless :)

123625

Do you not see how the two completely contradict?

If we are to assume God made Evolution happen and the bible is still true this contradicts. Because It clearly states that death came by man's sin, meaning it could not of happened before because there was no death.

We cannot say it happened after either. Because if man evolved from apes it means death had to of come for them to evolve. How can Evolution occur about 10000 or so years after death has occured? Apparently to science it cannot.

But as long as you beleive in Jesus, i don't care. You will find the truth one day. God Bless

Interesting notations. Like i said it gets down to a literal interpretation of Genesis or not. The end is what matters not the beginning. Follow your course and do what you believe your cup shall over flow with blessings :)

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

its clear you dont know the first thing about islam. the US invaded iraq for WMD and found nothing. now who created the war?

[QUOTE="123625"]

Im still skeptical about those fossils, They could be easily be different types of apes or monkeys that could of gone extinct.

Or they could be variations between kinds. (Not impossible)

domatron23

Look through my post again, read the text, examine the fossils and tell me which ones you think are apes or monkeys. Why, if they are just random extinct species, do they show a progression towards a human skull in chronological order?

And "variation between kinds" is just evolution (unless I have misunderstood you).

No its not the same as evolution, its just a change within the kind. A red dog may give birth to a blue dog does that mean they are not dogs? No of course not, it's still a dog.

Unless the change is a complete change to previous its not evolution.

[QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

NSR34GTR

its clear you dont know the first thing about islam. the US invaded iraq for WMD and found nothing. now who created the war?

I don't beleive you are referencing the right war. I believe its the holy wars between Islam and the palastinians if I am not mistaken.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="SonKev"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"]Thats where science (theory) ulitmately fails, when it tells me we came from a rock, I am not afraid to say. We have never seen this primordial soup coming from dead matter and never will.

And if Evolution can't give a solid foudation for how life began how can we beleive in any of it?

123625

Evolution=/=origin of life

You're right, the big bang is. the big bang leads to evolution,(which basically is chapter1 of evolution) so if the big bang is broken...oh man are you screwed.

What does the big bang have to do with anything? Evolution is just a change in inherited traits in a poplation of organisms over time. There doesn't have to be a naturalistic origin of life in order for evolution to be true. How life began is beyond the point here.

And because Evolution doesnt have a solid foundation for how life began how are we to trust it? All it gives us is abiogenesis which is so stupid (in my opinion)

Evolution does not need a solid foundation for the beginning of life. It doesn't matter if abiogenesis or the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage was responsible for life, all that matters is that this life is subject to change in inherited traits over time.