What if evolution was part of creationism?

[SmarterThanHick]

For you to even ask the question shows that you need to do some more reading on the subject.

So you want me to read up on the theories which you just provided and also stated have been disproven? You want me to learn about things that aren't true? Perhaps you should rethink this argument.

Clearly, if even a layman with no educational background in anthropology can discern the differences in skulls propped on some evolution website, that would wash out any evolutionary theory for them whatsoever- then yes, it is a logical lay-conclusion..

I think gcom already answered why that isn't quite correct.

I am well aware of that, but newsflash, hotshot- That's not evolutionary. That's actually the study of physics. And plus, I have heard the argument concerning two negatives making a positive, however those two negatives are actually negatively charged ions, and are SOMETHINGS because they are in fact in EXISTENCE. So again, just because you can add -1 and -1 and make a positive 1, does not mean that you got something from nothing, or that this was the result of evolution even.

First off, no one argued it was evolution. You argued that "I just dont believe that nothing can evolve into something, that a bang can come from nothingness". This is false, and it has been proven. I was not referring to -1 and -1 making a positive 1, I was referring to pure energy creating matter in the form of -1 and +1, and that matter colliding with itself to obliterate and return to energy. Again, none of these things are evolution, nor have I claimed them to be, but it does disprove your claim.

That is part of how I view the bible, anyways, and I am very agnostic, BTW

If you're using the religious documents of an established religion, you're not "very agnostic". In this case, it sounds like you're Christian (or judeochristian) with an open mind to not take the bible literally.

 

[JD_2B]

Excellent chimp to homo sapien posts those are

It is not chimp to homo sapiens. The chimp skull is present only as a reference, not as a point on the progression.

OK So we did not descend from primates now? My apparently retarded ass is just reaching, is it? And the primate skull (the one that belonged to a chimp) in the primate to human progression photographs is just a reference point.. OTAY BUHWHEET!

- But highly dependent on visual aides to help the layman to somehow see a constant in change and growth. However- some of the skulls pictured do not look at all similar to the last one, even to a layman.. For example- the "cheekbones" are far wider in some instances, then get suddenly narrower, and the eye sockets grow and shrink..

As they would if you took two modern day humans and compared their skulls side by side.

Of course they would- I am not retarded. I pointed out the differences in the skulls development and change- not just size..

The point is the overall progression of traits, not that each and every step is a perfect linear transition between the one directly before and the one directly after. Evolution doesn't work that way and neither does the fossilization process. We work with whatever representative individual of the time period happened to get fossilized. Maybe the guy had a big head. Maybe he had a small nose. That's not the point.

The overall progression of traits in the picture you used is crap, then- because overall, there are far too many discrepancies in the shape and curve of the skulls themselves. You can chalk this up to whatever you want- the first skull looks as similar to the last skull as the "I" skull does to it. Its a damned primate SKULL, for chrissakes.. And since not all primates are related, I would venture a guess (same as everyone elses) that some of the skulls pictured are not an exact match to the primate or homo whatever that it claims.. My only contention with you is not that evolution from primate to human is impossible- just that we need more evidence of skeletal similarities to prove such a thing. Right now, there lacks evidence to be capable of credibly proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think we are still primates- essentially. We are animals, after all. To say that humans are above animals is just ridiculous. I also believe that part of the bible has been falsely taught- The bible says that humans are to "rule over" the animals, not that we are above them, or even have more rights than the animals do. God accepted both animals AND sacrificed humans as gift offerings, apparently, at least for a time. Therefore, whatever you are trying to convey to me about evolution (Again, I BELIEVE in evolution- just believe it was Gods plan) is not really going to take me anywhere, besides going in circles about primate to human metamorphasis, which may or may not even be the case. Even if it IS true- that humans ascended from ancient primates (I choose now to say ascended, since evolution relies heavily on natural selection/ and nature relies heavily on survival of the fittest- meaning we have gone from dumbass "neanderthals" to almost equally dumb "wise men".. LOL although we at least know a few more things than before- like we have a rudimentary understanding of mathematics, allowing for the exploration of creating automated technological aides.. However, as we all know by our cruddy cell phones, our service providers, what happens when lightning strikes and the power fails for hours, or sometimes days or weeks on end, if there be another element mixed in, like a flood, or whatever, etc.. that even this has not been exacted.. But really, Lets move on.. haha

I was hardly relying only on one picture. There were six posts there. They were somewhat lengthy. There's a section in one of them on the lack of vitamin C synthesis in primates you may have missed. And the next post I make will be expanding more on the genetic links. There is effectively ZERO question we share common ancestry with primates (and everything else) scientifically speaking. It's as close to proven as science ever gets to proving anything.

When I said a picture- I meant the group of skulls condensed into one image. I also agree,that it is close.. But as those pictures go (in that image) there are so many clear differences in development that may go one way, and in a different direction in "I" and then come back to the changes that were already in place in "H". I realize that a hundred million years were between these, but I do NOT see this as a means to prove that we necessarily came from primates, as you say.. But again and again, I reiterate- even if if we did not come from primates, that is also not proof that evolution is a facade either.. Evolution is a certainty- but the real question that will take another million years to prove is whether EVERY species has evolved in any way.. That right there- The fact that we cannot even get perfect the proof that humans ascended from primates, knowing full well that humans have almost always been record keepers of sorts (not always with writings, but in other ways that you and I cannot even begin to fathom because our distinct perception is of record keeping being in the form of visual art/ drawings/ and writings..)

I thought your point was we needed more evidence to establish human common ancestry with primates. But maybe that's because you said:

"Well, there are plenty of points of evidence showing that we did evolve from primates, such as the tailbone, and the opposing thumbs- The skeletal similarities alone are a big indicator.. but I agree- there needs to be more evidence to prove this.. "

The universe was surely not formed by Evolution.. And a big bang is a fine explanation for the origin of life- but not the universe itself, simply because you cant get something from nothing. What banged?

Of course it wasnt formed "by evolution". Evolution is a biological process, how the hell would the universe be formed by evolution and who in the world has ever argued it was?

That one was for Ralph in response to something he said about the bible not having scripture on evolution.. and you.. in response to your own response, I believe, to this quotesplosion- and the thread is about creation (origins based) versus evolution (not origins based) ... oh and correct me if I was wrong about who wrote what- in any event, I was responding to this, I believe I made at least that much clear enough:

Evolution is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the form of propagated (transmitted) DIVINE TRUTH

neither is the internet. nor antibiotics. and yet these things exist, and are true.

^^^ His post was an attempt to discredit a deity for causing this chain reaction to begin.. and I am just letting him know that Evolution (again) is not about origins. Ralph is just a little confused about that part, apparently, or at least his comment suggested such. As did your own, lol..

As for what went "bang"... depends which theory is right. There's some argument over it right now. If Steinhardt and his faction are correct then it was a couple extra-spatial dimensional membranes coliding with quantum fluctuations in their flatness at collision being responsible for the non-uniform distribution of matter that resulted. If Linde and his faction are right it was some kind of quantum singularity going 'boom'.

A couple of somethings SIMPLY (I say again) can not come from complete nothingness.
Some kind of SOMETHING doing SOMETHING, which somethings tend to do, and not just creating a something FROM an absolute nothing. ;-)

Or new evidence could send them all off in a third direction. Who knows. They're still waiting on more evidence to come in to show which one is closer and arguing over it in the meantime. At least last I checked, which was admittedly a few years ago. At that time I was personally of the opinion that Steinhardt's theory had more promise but we need way more data.

I think that "Who Knows", is kind of the point of this thead, dear..

I also believe that the OP's intent with this thread was to try and see how many of us were open minded enough to see that something can be created and then evolve. To that effect, I am also fairly interested in learning how many people are open minded to an alternate truth than one they have been previously committed.

As long as the alternative "truth" has evidence it's true, entirely openminded.

Touche... If you apply that same logic to yourself, and admit that the evidence is empirical on both sides..

Don't forget- Anything you read in a science book is subject to you actually believing it's findings.. which makes science text fundamentally not much different than the bible..

 

[SmarterThanHick]

OK So we did not descend from primates now? My apparently retarded ass is just reaching, is it?

Apparently. You are assuming we are the progeny of those references, when we are more likened to evolutionary siblings or cousins.

Of course they would- I am not retarded.

False.

The overall progression of traits in the picture you used is crap, then- because overall, there are far too many discrepancies in the shape and curve of the skulls themselves.

Also false. He very clearly stated that in any population there is variation in size and shape of skulls, even within people today. Your skull is quite different than that of a pacific islander. It doesn't mean you're a different species. Furthermore, genetics tends to confirm the whole evolution thing, so you're grasping at straws by claiming it doesn't work just because your "expert lay person opinion" says so.

That right there- The fact that we cannot even get perfect the proof that humans ascended from primates

First you say we descended from them, now we ascended from them, and you have yet to use the term "common ancestor".

A couple of somethings SIMPLY (I say again) can not come from complete nothingness.

We have both now gone over this, him in the greater principle, me in specific examples. You have yet to refute either of us, yet you still claim it's false. Google "positron creation" if you must.

Don't forget- Anything you read in a science book is subject to you actually believing it's findings.. which makes science text fundamentally not much different than the bible..

False, anything in a science text book can be recreated, and the evidence which supports it can be re-examined time and time again to prove truth. The same can not be said about the bible.

 

[gcomeau]

Excellent chimp to homo sapien posts those are

It is not chimp to homo sapiens. The chimp skull is present only as a reference, not as a point on the progression.

OK So we did not descend from primates now?

We did descend from primates.

Chimpanzees also descended from primates.

Humans did NOT descend from chimps.

I would expect someone who claims decent knowledge of evolutionary theory to be aware of that incredibly basic fact.

Of course they would- I am not retarded. I pointed out the differences in the skulls development and change- not just size..

So did I.

The overall progression of traits in the picture you used is crap, then- because overall, there are far too many discrepancies in the shape and curve of the skulls themselves.

You mean in your expert opinion?

You can chalk this up to whatever you want- the first skull looks as similar to the last skull as the "I" skull does to it. Its a damned primate SKULL, for chrissakes.. And since not all primates are related,

All primates ARE related...

I would venture a guess (same as everyone elses) that some of the skulls pictured are not an exact match to the primate or homo whatever that it claims.. My only contention with you is not that evolution from primate to human is impossible- just that we need more evidence of skeletal similarities to prove such a thing.

No, we do not. The skeletal similarities are rather low on the list of compelling evidence of the relation. The genetic evidence is primary, and completely overwhelming. You may want to refer to my latest post in that other thread, I've added yet another entry on that genetic evidence there in the chromosome fusion section. There is no ambiguity here. barring the last 150 years of biological data being some kind of global mass hallucination or something we share common ancestry with other primates and every other living thing on the planet. That case is closed and has been for quite a long time everywhere outside religious discussions where people refuse to accept it because it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Right now, there lacks evidence to be capable of credibly proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

That you are unfamiliar with the evidence does not render it non existent.

When I said a picture- I meant the group of skulls condensed into one image.

So did I. What else would I possibly have been talking about considering the context?

A couple of somethings SIMPLY (I say again) can not come from complete nothingness.

And? Who said anything about anything coming from "complete nothingness"? I certainly didn't.

I think that "Who Knows", is kind of the point of this thead, dear..

Only on things we don't, you know, know. A lot of the things being debated here we DO know. Like that humans descended from other primates.

Touche... If you apply that same logic to yourself, and admit that the evidence is empirical on both sides..

If you show me some that qualifies on the other side then I'll admit it.

Don't forget- Anything you read in a science book is subject to you actually believing it's findings.. which makes science text fundamentally not much different than the bible..

Not even close. What you read in science book is objectively verifiable to anyone who cares to put in the effort to do it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Question: Why are the religious extremists so against evolutionary science?

Note: Not talking about the non-extremist religious people.

 

[Diuretic]

Don't forget- Anything you read in a science book is subject to you actually believing it's findings.. which makes science text fundamentally not much different than the bible..

That is true if the person reading the science text and the person reading the Bible is not a scientist nor a theologian. Me for example

I could read a science text (a basic one) and "believe" it. I could read the Bible and "believe" it. But that's just my individual impression of both. There are other permutations:

Read science text, not believe it. Read Bible, believe it.
Read science text, not believe it. Read Bible, not believe it.
Read science text, believe it. Read Bible, not believe it.

It means nothing outside of me. So in that sense the science text and the Bible are alike.

But when a scientists reads a science text they're not of the mindset to "believe", they're reading it in a far different manner than me. And a theologian reading the Bible also. Both have a positive disposition to their subject matter, both are reading very differently from me.

A science text is a record of experimentation (let's say). The Bible is a revealed document. They are different. Just as science and religion are different. One operates on a system of scepticism, the other operates on a system of faith. Belief in the world of science is irrelevant, belief in the world of religion is useful.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Question: Why are the religious extremists so against evolutionary science?

Note: Not talking about the non-extremist religious people.

Good question.

Honestly I was surprised that some religious people are upset by this idea....and im surprised some evolution based people are so negative toward me about it too.

Seriously it was just a thought

 

[Diuretic]

I may have a simplistic view on this, from the theological side (and definitely from the scientific side). But it seems to me that the only believers who feel threatened by the idea of evolution, particularly human evolution, are those who have a literalist interpretation of the Bible. And perhaps that has something to do with the way they perceive the world as well. Existence is about ambiguity but some can't handle it and insist on absolutes.

I mean if God exists then He may well have decided to have things the way they are.

Personally I think all of us are a cosmic accident. But isn't it amazing to speculate? Look at the universe, we have little idea of its nature (well I think so anyway). Is it finite? If it is then what else is there? If it's infinite then how can that be? I know I'm limited by personal and species-specific lack of ability to understand those concepts but it's really interesting just thinking about them.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Diuretic thats the best part, being able to speculate.

I fully intended to entertain a myriad of ideas on the subject but people have no sense of imagination or adventure.

They all want to stick it in their neat little pre-defined box and be done with it....i'd rather be like the stoner hippies and say "Imagine if this is what really happened man" and enjoy the process.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Question: Why are the religious extremists so against evolutionary science?

Note: Not talking about the non-extremist religious people.

i.e. you are extremist if you don't agree with evolution.

Call me extreme. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Beyond that it depends. If you mean micro evolution I'm all for it.

If you mean macro evolution it ain't in the Bible and it ain't been proven. pssst... its a fairy tale. Why should I believe a fairy tale. I don't believe in kissing frogs and turning them into princes.

Those who believe in macro and cosmic evolution are the only possible proof for macro and cosmic evolution.

 

[KittenKoder]

Question: Why are the religious extremists so against evolutionary science?

Note: Not talking about the non-extremist religious people.

i.e. you are extremist if you don't agree with evolution.

Call me extreme. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Beyond that it depends. If you mean micro evolution I'm all for it.

If you mean macro evolution it ain't in the Bible and it ain't been proven. pssst... its a fairy tale. Why should I believe a fairy tale. I don't believe in kissing frogs and turning them into princes.

Those who believe in macro and cosmic evolution are the only possible proof for macro and cosmic evolution.

First, the bible is a fairy tale.

Secondly, there are lots of things (billions of things) that exist which are not "mentioned in the bible" ... so do none of those exist? Like computers? Cars? Gravity? Saturn? The galaxy?

 

[Care4all]

Diuretic thats the best part, being able to speculate.

I fully intended to entertain a myriad of ideas on the subject but people have no sense of imagination or adventure.

They all want to stick it in their neat little pre-defined box and be done with it....i'd rather be like the stoner hippies and say "Imagine if this is what really happened man" and enjoy the process.

great analogy!

and, me too!

and I am enjoying the process! Especially comparing the 2, it's like working a puzzle of 'what ifs'!

Care

 

[Care4all]

has it been explained yet, how modern humans came to have a much larger brain, compared to previous humans? Have they found the missing link yet that shows a progression of this change?

Do you think eating an apple from the tree of the knowledge....is what changed us? I mean, isn't it possible that this Book is making reference to Modern Man being different from human-ids before us, who were not so large brained or knowledgeable?

Laughable to some....but to me, it's a sign to look further than what I want to hold my 'logical thinking' mind to.

Then the scripture about adam and eve living off land naturally, to then being sent out of this self supplying Eden....we know we began as humans in one place and then spread out....according to the Bible and DNA is showing we all had one ancestor...we did not begin in different places which science once thought, science has now disproved their original hypothesis and shown through Dna mapping that it is as the Bible stated...we had one proverbial Adam and Eve.

Some may laugh at this as well, but I asked myself....HOW did the writers of these Books know this 5000 years ago, when they wrote it? It's worth pursuing...

The Bible said, from that point on, man began ''tilling the soil'' for their food...and low and behold, science says...through archaeology and paleontology etc....shows the progression of 'man' did precisely that...went from hunting and gathering of berries etc to TILLING the soil...agriculture reliant societies.

There are soooo soooo many things in the Bible about our history, our progression that i had discarded earlier because I was stuck on the word DAY, and couldn't get past that silly word DAY...on the FIRST DAY stopped me in my logical tracks when reading Genesis...but then, too many other things that were said in short story form in the Bible that I originally was skeptical about, started to be proven true....yes true...most of the sequence of events were true....the progression of most of these events were true.

Like life beginning in our oceans...plants before creatures, fish before birds, animals before man....all of this progression writen in the Bible....we did NOT KNOW THIS was the progression of how the life on earth and earth evolved until the last century, yet somehow these people that wrote these Books in the Bible about this knew this? Or were they being guided in their writings?

Like water rising up from under the earth in a mist that became rain...covering the earth with oceans, then our land rising up... how did the writers know to write this 5000 years ago?

there are so many things like this, that i find amazing and beyond a coincidence in my logic and deserve consideration....and contemplation.

care

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Maybe the ancient atlantians were real and they were the last of our previous human advancement.

Maybe we got real advanced 10's of thousands of years ago and then we screwed up and lost it all, the stories from back then were what got left behind and written into books like the bible.

AM I making sense?

 

[Care4all]

Maybe the ancient atlantians were real and they were the last of our previous human advancement.

Maybe we got real advanced 10's of thousands of years ago and then we screwed up and lost it all, the stories from back then were what got left behind and written into books like the bible.

AM I making sense?

Yes...all questions should be asked...SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND....

Oh, and I most certainly believe that Atlantis existed...not just a fairy tale of a famous author...this same author told a tale of Troy which no one believed to be true either, and now, within the last 5-10 years, TROY was found in an archaeological dig....

And the various indian groups, aztec, Mayan, Hopi all say we got very advanced a few times and were then wiped out with catastrophe and then began from square one again....could explain the very advanced building of pyramids so precisely in Egypt and here in the americas and the mayan's knowledge of the stars and their different calendars that are more accurate than we can keep time today?

Google -Lost Knowledge or Secret Knowledge...there is tons on it.

care

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I've often said that I don't see why the two aren't compatible!

 

[KittenKoder]

Maybe the ancient atlantians were real and they were the last of our previous human advancement.

Maybe we got real advanced 10's of thousands of years ago and then we screwed up and lost it all, the stories from back then were what got left behind and written into books like the bible.

AM I making sense?

Lovecraft went a step further in his works, writing of an ancient species that was highly intelligent, but they were evolved from plants. The fiction he wrote on it was based on his actual belief that there were once more intelligent species before us. There are many others who have come up with such tales, and as fantastic as they sound, they are all very feasible.

 

[Care4all]

SCIENCE does NOT even know where all of our water on earth came from...they can only speculate....

Even were that true, which it isn't exactly, what would be your point?

What we do know is Roughly How Much Water We Have.

And it isn't enough to flood the entire Earth. It isn't even close. Which is why The Light is dodging the question. To have a flood, you need the water. And he can't come up with it.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, my apologies...i was not arguing on that, (though i could try to give a shot at it!) i guess i was just arguing for the sake of arguing, that we don't know everything YET, when it comes to even the volume of water we do have on earth....at least from what i last read on this, and from merely a layman's understanding.... it is ALL interesting to me.

 

[Diuretic]

Question: Why are the religious extremists so against evolutionary science?

Note: Not talking about the non-extremist religious people.

i.e. you are extremist if you don't agree with evolution.

Call me extreme. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Beyond that it depends. If you mean micro evolution I'm all for it.

If you mean macro evolution it ain't in the Bible and it ain't been proven. pssst... its a fairy tale. Why should I believe a fairy tale. I don't believe in kissing frogs and turning them into princes.

Those who believe in macro and cosmic evolution are the only possible proof for macro and cosmic evolution.

First, the bible is a fairy tale.

Secondly, there are lots of things (billions of things) that exist which are not "mentioned in the bible" ... so do none of those exist? Like computers? Cars? Gravity? Saturn? The galaxy?

I don't think I'd suggest the Bible was a "fairy tale". As a written text it has some sort of credibility - and I mean the whole text, not simply the Old or New Testaments. As we know the Old Testament has a Jewish intellectual heritage, the New Testament a mix of Jewish and Hellenic. As such it is subject to exegesis. While fairy tales can be analysed in much the same way I think there's a bit more depth in the Bible.

 

[Diuretic]

Maybe the ancient atlantians were real and they were the last of our previous human advancement.

Maybe we got real advanced 10's of thousands of years ago and then we screwed up and lost it all, the stories from back then were what got left behind and written into books like the bible.

AM I making sense?

Lovecraft went a step further in his works, writing of an ancient species that was highly intelligent, but they were evolved from plants. The fiction he wrote on it was based on his actual belief that there were once more intelligent species before us. There are many others who have come up with such tales, and as fantastic as they sound, they are all very feasible.

Yep, when you look at us we must seem pretty weird to other life forms.

Terry Bisson's great SF short story - Short Stories: They're Made out of Meat by Terry Bisson