As in the days of Noah.....

[baydoll]

i will say it one more time for you.....

we have a common ancestor, we did not evolve directly today's monkeys. We both brached off in the same tree.

So where is all this evidence supporting this, tommy?

 

[tommyjones]

One of Darwin's ideas were that during a long drought, some imaginary 'pre-giraffe' were taller than others so they were able to reach the scarce leaves upon which it fed. These 'survivors' supposedly "left offsprings inheriting the same bodily pecularities, while individuals less favored in the same respects would have been the most likely to perish" (Darwin's Origin of Species). Darwin concluded, "by this process long continued, an ordinary hoofed guadruped might be converted into a giraffe".

Well how the heck did the baby giraffes manage to survive during this incredible long drought?

And where are the fossil evidence supporting this?

There are none. Giraffes have always been giraffes. Long necks and all.

so i guess people have always been people, and there has been no change to our species for eternity?

 

[baydoll]

And :shrug: that wasnt the question nor the point. You (and others) Claim the proverbs and verses used in the Bible, were written for the people at the time. So the Bible isnt for people of today?

They are written for both. Did people change?

Especially since the concepts in the proverbs have been found to be false.

And these are?

 

[This_person]

the obvious answer is that food became harder to reach through environmental constraints meaning that tall or longer necked animals more easily fed and therefore were more likely to reproduce. shorter animals couldn't reach the food and reproduced less.

Natural secetion......

Okay, so giraffes are built with seven bone necks, like humans and horses, but with cow-like digestive systems and deer like bone structure (besides the neck).

As this deer-like, horse-like, cow-like species evolved into the 8 foot necked giraffe, where are the three foot necked transitional species? 5 foot?

None have been found - did you know that? It's "likely" that we'll eventually find them. But, not one intermediate has been there for us to see. As far as we can tell, it was a deer like, horse like cow one day, and a giraffe the next.

If it took millions of years, why don't we see the intermediate? If environment caused the change, why didn't they just move with the other parts of the herds that made it into other species? If it took that long, the environmental changes couldn't have been that drastic to need the change. If the changes were needed due to drastic changes in environment, hundreds or even tens of generations would not have been able to occur.

Do you see the hole in the theory?

 

[baydoll]

Because there were many more than the 5,000 you cite that didnt believe. And where did this 5,000 number come from?

I'm sorry, my bad. It is 3,000:

Acts 2:37-41
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

 

[Xaquin44]

Tommy and NS .... you're really just trying to tell a few retards to 'smarten up'. Heck, one doesn't even have a brain .... literally according to her own admission.

edit: do you really think you'll win an argument against someone who thinks they don't have a brain (I have no idea how this works ....)?

Anyone with more then 3 brain cells can see the argument has already been won, many times over by our side. No point wasting time or frustration on the brain dead.

....

although, it would be interesting to find out what she makes of headaches.

and/or what she thinks is currently residing inside her skull.

 

[baydoll]

so i guess people have always been people, and there has been no change to our species for eternity?

Unless you can give us the fossil remains of the missing link then that would be correct.

 

[This_person]

so i guess people have always been people, and there has been no change to our species for eternity?

I do understand the theory that monkeys and humans are supposedly descendants from a common ancestor (though none has been found ); but certainly the changes to humans that we've been able to see through fossil evidence is nothing on the order of an 8 foot neck - you do agree with that, right?

Could it be that diet, medicinal capabilities, gradual increases in tool usage, fire usage, intelligence, etc., can be the direct cause of this "evolution" of man - not random happenstance or environmental need (that doesn't actually cause change, it just enhances it, as you folks have so eloquently explained)?

 

[tommyjones]

Unless you can give us the fossil remains of the missing link then that would be correct.

so how do you and TP explain all the various huminoid precursers to Homo sapien that have been found as fossils?

History of Man
SPECIES TIME PERIOD
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present



which one of these fossils would adam resemble?

 

[foodcritic]

Complicated answers

and where did god sit when he created the universe?

where did he get the stuff (as we know from science, matter is not created or destroyed)?

what was there BEFORE god created the universe?

did god create life on other planets?


answer those oh insightful one......

First...I don't claim to have all the creation answers.
Most sciencetists point to the "big bang" theory. Many just as informed DO NOT. They believe that the universe always existed. There are huge fundemental philosophical contradictions between the two. I suspect you would agree.

Many in science field want to reject the big bang if only because it smacks of creation. Which is what I would call it. In my opinion the big bang is God's creation.

If the whole universe has a start point, what started it? It the universe is expanding out (most agree) then it must have had a starting point.

The chance of randomness being able to produce complex life that we know is statistically impossible.

We are asked to belive that a random act produces a universe that can produce a planet that can produce highly complex life.....sorry I dont have that kind of faith.

 

[Xaquin44]

Maybe she saw the Wizard of Oz and really related to the Scarecrow?

I thought that at first too, but then I thought that that book has witchcraft and thusly would be blasphemy.

 

[foodcritic]

Okay, so giraffes are built with seven bone necks, like humans and horses, but with cow-like digestive systems and deer like bone structure (besides the neck).

As this deer-like, horse-like, cow-like species evolved into the 8 foot necked giraffe, where are the three foot necked transitional species? 5 foot?

None have been found - did you know that? It's "likely" that we'll eventually find them. But, not one intermediate has been there for us to see. As far as we can tell, it was a deer like, horse like cow one day, and a giraffe the next.

If it took millions of years, why don't we see the intermediate? If environment caused the change, why didn't they just move with the other parts of the herds that made it into other species? If it took that long, the environmental changes couldn't have been that drastic to need the change. If the changes were needed due to drastic changes in environment, hundreds or even tens of generations would not have been able to occur.

Do you see the hole in the theory?

I might add that MOST observable mutations have negative effects. The two-headed frog etc, etc etc......

 

[This_person]

Or it could just be a matter of Time? :shrug:

It could be just a matter of time, or it could be the wrong answer. Both are equally likely.

Evolution has occurred for millions and billions of years correct? Some form of it, not getting into the validity of your Poof its there, nor our Evolution from Algae (simple explanation).

We've only been fossil hunting for a miniscule amount of that time, say 300 years, to be generous. To be fair theres been alot of time we werent doing anything related to fossils, since the assumption before that was the "Poof" theory

I will grant that. The point is that there's not enough evidence there to conclude anything from it. There are more than enough holes to be EQUALLY skeptical of poof from algae or poof from God.

I don't want you to believe in God - at least that's not my goal in these discussions. I want you to look as skeptically at the scientific theories as you do at the religious ones. I'll say this again - neither stands up to critical, logical, common sense tests. Both make people who are so inclined to agree with them feel good on the surface, but neither is ANYTHING more than faith the answer is out there and we just don't have the proof in our theory yet.

My belief is in God. Not the Pope's God, nor Martin Luther's God, or Rev. Wright's God (for sure), but in my reading of the Bible, of other religious texts, of history, of nature and science. I am a Christian, but with many problems with "the church" and some of the fundamental thinking of the current way of practicing. The Bible is not all inclusive, and should not be viewed as such - much more research is necessary. But, all that being said, I haven't a lick of proof to offer, and I don't claim to.

 

[Toxick]

Now this is where Toxic gets his panties in a twist, some funditard loses the ability to uphold a conversation on their end, and decides to post some condescending BS because they cant defend their Sky Pixie.

Bite me.


I don't get my panties in a twist because someone can't adequately defend their position or convince you to believe in something.

What torques my shorts is when you make comparisons (a la: Sharia in Texas) for the sake of provocation, and when you use diminutive terms like Sky Pixie for the sake of being offensive and condescending.

I also get irritated when you misrepresent my position and my arguments, like you do in the quote above. Especially when I had nothing to do with the relevant conversation.

 

[This_person]

so how do you and TP explain all the various huminoid precursers to Homo sapien that have been found as fossils?

History of Man
SPECIES TIME PERIOD
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present



which one of these fossils would adam resemble?

From my point of view, Adam could have resembled any of them. Or, none of them. Perhaps that's what the Bible meant when saying "sons of God" and "sons of man" as two different types of people.

You're making the point, though, that we don't know, because you can't answer my questions (ie, YOU don't know). That's good. I'm getting through.

 

[foodcritic]

Because it is a SCIENTIFIC theory. It is perfectly acceptable to teach a SCIENTIFIC theory in a SCIENCE class. Creationism/Intelligent design is acceptable to teach in a Theology class. Don't worry your not alone, This_Person has problems understanding this concept also

What your asking for is equal status between a SCIENTIFIC theory based on fact and discovery, versus a THEOLOGICAL belief based on the absense of fact and discovery (definition of faith). Which is an acceptable subject in a Debate class

this is foolishness. It's Ok when scientists present something. They do so under the guise of "science".
eventually we ask the how questions. When probed with that question ( and having no answer) Dawkins can share with us that life MAY have come from bacteria or sum such thing that migrated here thu space and landed on the just so fertile plot of land called earth. And then time, water and temp produced our cozy little world.

This is called Pan-Spermia just one more THEORY of how it all began.
Was that a faith based reponse or scientific.......

 

[foodcritic]

so how do you and TP explain all the various huminoid precursers to Homo sapien that have been found as fossils?

History of Man
SPECIES TIME PERIOD
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present



which one of these fossils would adam resemble?

First I have no idea what these tiny fragments may be. However I suspect it we have some common ancestor it would take millions of millions of mutations to get from there to here. Each mutation would have to makes it's way thur the entire population. So I would suspect there should be thousands and thousands of prehuman populations. This should be found by digging.

Unless of course you prescirbe to the punctuated equilibrium theory?

 

[tommyjones]

From my point of view, Adam could have resembled any of them. Or, none of them. Perhaps that's what the Bible meant when saying "sons of God" and "sons of man" as two different types of people.

You're making the point, though, that we don't know, because you can't answer my questions (ie, YOU don't know). That's good. I'm getting through.

actually, i am making the point that there is myrid evidence that evolution happens, and these precursers to modern man make that pretty clear.

I have answered your questions. you just dont want to accept the answers.


your book doesn't address the many humanoid fossils that we have found. you can massage the wordings all you want, but the story of adam and eve is pretty clear. either they were the parents of the first fossil group, or god tried several diffent iterations, but didn't find them worthy of putting in the book. (although everything else was spelled out)

 

[This_person]

actually, i am making the point that there is myrid evidence that evolution happens, and these precursers to modern man make that pretty clear.

I have answered your questions. you just dont want to accept the answers.

You haven't answered my question, though. You've demonstrated your belief in a change in the humanoid of man, and I dispute none of it. However, you haven't gotten from the sponge to the man, while meanwhile getting from the sponge to the ficus, while meanwhile maintaining the sponge. It just doesn't hold up to skeptical, critical thinking. :shrug:

your book doesn't address the many humanoid fossils that we have found. you can massage the wordings all you want, but the story of adam and eve is pretty clear. either they were the parents of the first fossil group, or god tried several diffent iterations, but didn't find them worthy of putting in the book. (although everything else was spelled out)

A. It's not "my" book. Certainly not my only book, anyway.
B. If Adam and Eve were the parents of the first fossil group, how does that change away from anything I've said? It's very possible that Adam and Eve were the first humanoid, without the form of modern humans. And, they "evolved" into what we are today. This goes against nothing in the Bible, nor in my beliefs.
C. You say "everything else was spelled out" in the Bible. This is far, far, far from the truth. Most Christians will strongly deny this claim - I've never heard it from anyone but a non-believer. The Bible has all you need to know for how to live your life, not all you want to know about everything. I've said this over and over and over again. It's not a science book, a history book, nor anything other than what it claims to be.

Evolution does not become true because there are misinterpretations or even inaccuracies in religion or religious people, just like creation does not become correct if evolution has holes it or is even flat out wrong insofar as trans-species evolution is concerned. I'm not out to "take sides", as Xanquin did a few posts ago, nor belittle others' beliefs as so many have done in these threads. My point is to merely get you to look at your own beliefs as critically, as skeptically as you look at mine, and admit it has no more answers than mine does - it's faith that it will be vindicated someday.


(BTW, you really fell down when I said there are no fossils of giraffes - I've been waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong with that so I can tell you I was just exaggerating to make a point, like saying the Bible has all things but this or all things but that, when that's not true either)

 

[tommyjones]

You haven't answered my question, though. You've demonstrated your belief in a change in the humanoid of man, and I dispute none of it. However, you haven't gotten from the sponge to the man, while meanwhile getting from the sponge to the ficus, while meanwhile maintaining the sponge. It just doesn't hold up to skeptical, critical thinking. :shrug:A. It's not "my" book. Certainly not my only book, anyway.
B. If Adam and Eve were the parents of the first fossil group, how does that change away from anything I've said? It's very possible that Adam and Eve were the first humanoid, without the form of modern humans. And, they "evolved" into what we are today. This goes against nothing in the Bible, nor in my beliefs.
C. You say "everything else was spelled out" in the Bible. This is far, far, far from the truth. Most Christians will strongly deny this claim - I've never heard it from anyone but a non-believer. The Bible has all you need to know for how to live your life, not all you want to know about everything. I've said this over and over and over again. It's not a science book, a history book, nor anything other than what it claims to be.

Evolution does not become true because there are misinterpretations or even inaccuracies in religion or religious people, just like creation does not become correct if evolution has holes it or is even flat out wrong insofar as trans-species evolution is concerned. I'm not out to "take sides", as Xanquin did a few posts ago, nor belittle others' beliefs as so many have done in these threads. My point is to merely get you to look at your own beliefs as critically, as skeptically as you look at mine, and admit it has no more answers than mine does - it's faith that it will be vindicated someday.


(BTW, you really fell down when I said there are no fossils of giraffes - I've been waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong with that so I can tell you I was just exaggerating to make a point, like saying the Bible has all things but this or all things but that, when that's not true either)

the story of genisis is very specific. in the beginning, on the first day..... etc.
It goes so far as to list all the begot'ing that was done and who desended from whom.otherwise the story would have been"god created homo-a, didn't like him so he created homo-b, too short, so he creeated homo-c, couldn't talk, so he created homo-d (all with mates BTW), then god created adam...."

it isn't. the story of genisis is very specific.


as for your ignorant claims about giraffe's and their necks. i just grew bored of your idiocy. you are either a tard, or you are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. either way, you have no logical argument.