Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Darkov]

Groovy, I like this thread :thumb:

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I though this thread had died.

[mastercho]

hmm this thread is quite old aint it. ah well. no need to post here then lol. get done for bumping. hehe.

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

i think its too late for that mastercho.

very interesting xtinct, what source did you get that from?

[Darkov]

Just thought of something, humans have a tailbone yes? It's a small nub of bone where our tails would be if we had them. Apes and Monkey's have them as well, although monkeys actually have tails. Dig the connection?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

As a spacemonkey, I am superior to all Earth bound mammals, I am in no way related to you silly knees-bent running about types.

[Verrt]

Just thought of something, humans have a tailbone yes? It's a small nub of bone where our tails would be if we had them. Apes and Monkey's have them as well, although monkeys actually have tails. Dig the connection?

yeah and whales have thumbs, whats your point?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Dogs have tails, birds have tails, fish have tails... Having a tail doesn't mean your related to other tailed animals, and humans dont even have tails.

[Darkov]

All true, but are any of those animals related very closely with humans, (intelligence etc.) have almost the same amount of chromosomes and are believed to be by some, the precursors of homo erectus?

[Black Heart]

Just another stab at creationists.
They always have the "So I am supposed to beleive I came from an amoeba" attitude.
Which really only highlights their inability to grasp the great time scale, evolution is based on. Also the "Well why haven't any new species been developing in the last 3000 years"
Which brings the point of my post, while its not directly related to evolution, its highlights lifes ability to change. Just think about what you DID come from, a sperm a little wormy thing with a tale & a egg not much more than a cell itself. in 9 months its a recognisable human.
Frogs, also start as eggs go to fish with gills, and the amphibious 4 legged hoppers with lungs.. all in a  very short time. With that in mind can you still honestly claim that life is 'fixed in place' that its not possible to have ever been filled with quite different creatures? Dogs with all the different breeds around have only developed in the last few hundred years, can you say they'll be the same in 3 or 4 thousand years? 100,000's of years? a million years?

[mastercho]

the tail bone issue, its used for stability. otherwise we would not walk.

and black heart wtf?? honestly. the creationists believe in a higher being that can not be comprehended, and your saying they cant comprehend the time scale. sorry but thats a bit wack. and every animal grows from an egg and sperm of some sort. its called the creation of life. its a cycle. not quick evoloution. the way in which they are born is different, external eggs or live born.

as with dogs, the only reason there are heaps of breeds is due to humans. lol cross breeding untill they get what they want, this is not evoloution just cross breeding. at least 70% of all dog breeds are cross breeds. which comes out with a new breed. if the givin combination has not been done before.

discoery - nat geo - animal planet all useful channells on sky, can learn a  lot from them.

[Black Heart]

no you completely misconstrued what I posted. The eggs / dogs are examples that show our life cycle is about Drastic bodily changes, in our lifetime.
Its to highlight the point that in the 3000 years of human history its not very suprising not to see new species. the fact the creationists harp on about that as 'proof' evolution doesn't occur.

Creationists argument against evolution
1) The world isn't billions of years old, it says so in the bible.
2) Fossil aging is flawed and gives spurious results.
3) There have been no new species.
4) Darwin stated he didn't beleive in evolution. (From what I've read on his death bed. Urban legend?)

And my points are
1) We see light from stars billions of light years away
2) So?
3) Thats related to 1 and 2, evolution doesn't claim new species will pop up in thousands of year, maybe 100x that, or 1000x that.
4) So?

Creationists are far more zealous (generally) about this because they feel they have somethign to lose (ie creation / god). Scientist I don't think are quite so closed minded and will beleive whatever the evidence and theories make the most complete picture. Historically religion and science have always been at odds. Creation science is refuted wholeheartedly by regular science solely because they give science a bad name, by association.

I stated earlier that I don't particularly beleive either camp. However If i was asked which will come up with a complete picture *eventually* scientists get my backing everytime.
The whole creationist movement will die a natural, afterall the basis of religion is faith, ie not needing evidence/proof. You can't combine that with science. it doesn't,can't & wont work.

[Xt1ncT]

Nice post BH, that's pretty much exactly what I think.

[Darkov]

People can have their tailbone's removed if needed, esp. if it's broken badly and doesn't heal properly and still walk fine.

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

darwin not actualy beleiving evolution is one of my more favorite ironies, it was kinda like leading a revolution that got lost beihnd you.

they say at the day darwin died he wrote to one of his relatives, something about they human eye being so complex, so well concieved and contructed down to the very cells that create it. How could it be possible that simple one celled creatures that had all the anatonomy they required to survive as they were. somehow developed the want to grow multiple cells attached to it, let alone know how to create multiple cells each with its own purpose that can carry out important processes that are required by other cells billions on cells away. Darwin asked himself: if we did not have our eyes and all its components to start with, our cells must have learnt to become light sensitive, our cells must have learnt to combine and form contracting muscle tissue, our cells must have learn to form transparent layers. How does bacteria learn?

I find it no coincidence that a boigraphy on darwins life did not include the letters that he wrote. why? would seem science has something to lose also?

like this time for example: after a flash flood in the USA a riverbed was found to be dried out and its mud layers stripped. It revealed fossilised foot prints left in the river rock later clearly from a dinosaur stampede that once occured here.

The media immediatly recorded the anomoly, praising it as "proof of dinosaur movement millions of years ago in this location"
Then somone found a human footprint in those same fossils, and more, and more and more, these foot prints looked exactly as any print a modern human would make in the sand

Exception being bigger and had a HUGE stride

and these prints were directly alongside the dinosaur prints in the same rock layer. This would have been shocking news but the media ignored it. later, Darwinists announced the discovery of a new dinosaur with human like feet. but no bone structure of such a creature was ever presented as proof.

Why was it ignored? because it questioned the accuracy of the evolution time scale because it meant humans existed in the time of the dinousaurs.

it also supported the creationist theory that dinosaurs are but normal lizards that overgrew because of high air pressure and became extinct because man hunted them. It prooved humans were bigger and faster too just as creationists intend.

what this means is as hard to beleive creation is, evolution is easy to doubt.

I really find both parties questionable, i think the answer is a combination of both, there has been so much conflicting between the two that i dont think anyone else has noticed it. What matters is people will agree with what popular even if it is not right, so evolution gets the only support since it seems so appealing. Thats why it seems so evident but im not fooled.

Consider this people, how do we know ardipethicus afarensis isnt the ansestor of another ape other than humans. According to evolution its very possible gorillas were once bipedal but changed spinal shape to accomodate heavier body builds, faster land movement and bone strenght. Or were deformed by a mutation that debilitated the bone structure. No im not asking you to think creation is right in everything, i want you to look for a 3rd idea. Thats would be a true discussion of what happened all those years ago.

And darkov the tail bone supports ALL your ass muscles, pretty important for hard shitting. People who had it removed needed a reconnection of those muscles and will walk fine afterwards

[jugganawt]

Thats was very interesting

[Darkov]

Oh right.

Darwin couldn't explain how eyes form? I bet he could barely grasp the idea of a huge intergrated computer network as well.

13th Century farmers knew from experience that if they shifted their crops about, they got increased yields. They couldn't know the exact science behind it but they knew it worked. Now we know it's because contiuous farming depletes valuable minerals and nitrogen from the soil.

Kinda like our position, just because we havn't got the science or technical knowledge to prove evolution now, doesn't mean it's irrevelant.

[Black Heart]

like this time for example: after a flash flood in the USA a riverbed was found to be dried out and its mud layers stripped. It revealed fossilised foot prints left in the river rock later clearly from a dinosaur stampede that once occured here.

The media immediatly recorded the anomoly, praising it as "proof of dinosaur movement millions of years ago in this location"
Then somone found a human footprint in those same fossils, and more, and more and more, these foot prints looked exactly as any print a modern human would make in the sand

Exception being bigger and had a HUGE stride

and these prints were directly alongside the dinosaur prints in the same rock layer. This would have been shocking news but the media ignored it. later, Darwinists announced the discovery of a new dinosaur with human like feet. but no bone structure of such a creature was ever presented as proof.

OK theres an obvious flaw there. for mud -foot prints to be preserved in ROCK , which at the time was mud.. how long does it take for soft mud to go rock hard? firstly i guess it would have to be baked dry in the sun for months at least, anything undergoing that process would shrink / deform. the exact original shape WOULD be lost. then theres the fact there would be some sort of weathering also.
Further to this nobody denies dinosaurs existed, theres huge bones found all over the world.  I could be wrong but I'm sure nobodies found fossilized 'giants' or large human bones. So really theres NO other substantiating proof of large humans.
The other bits you posted about scientists or 'darwinists' declaring things as 'proof' is quite wrong. It's a fact the foot prints were found but any statement they've made about it is simply a hypothesis, which our beloved media no doubt reworded to be 'proof' (readers & viewers don't like big words like hypothesis.)

A hypothesis is just an educated guess, an attempt at an explanation, which to them at least is plausible. When scientists don't mention other factors, you seem to immediately infer theres a cover up. But its far more mundane. They don't know, and rather than spout something which they themselves don't think likely, or plausible, they just keep working on it some more till something eventually does make sense, & can be explained.
If some other self proclaimed expert wants to have a theory, thats fine. The real misdeed is acting as if the hypothesis is an absolute truth, or worse yet continuing to promote that idea when its been disproven.
I know there are people that beleive "evolution" as an absolute truth. And I probably sound like that too at times, I just think it has potential, which I don't see in 'creation'.
 To me creation is a cop-out, the subject matter is beyond ever being comprehended, god did it, leave it at that. Human curiosity will ensure we never do let it rest, whether we are curious by design - or curious by nature.
One thing we can agree on (I hope) is that nature is an immense & complex system. Hopefully we will be able to understand it more and more with the research that goes on, and however it began, or developed, it's in our best interests to find out how to preserve it, so that we can stop ourselves from destroying it utterly... which is the way we're most likely headed.
Then again creationists probably beleive thats inevitable anyway, armageddon and all. :bounce:

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

OK theres an obvious flaw there. for mud -foot prints to be preserved in ROCK , which at the time was mud.. how long does it take for soft mud to go rock hard? firstly i guess it would have to be baked dry in the sun for months at least, anything undergoing that process would shrink / deform. the exact original shape WOULD be lost. then theres the fact there would be some sort of weathering also.

i didnt say the footprints were preserved in mud, there was a rock layer UNDERNEATH several layers of mud. Thanks to the mud, the rock was well protected from the erosion of the water although some did occur, there was not enough to distort the image

Further to this nobody denies dinosaurs existed, theres huge bones found all over the world.  I could be wrong but I'm sure nobodies found fossilized 'giants' or large human bones. So really theres NO other substantiating proof of large humans.

oh yes there was, i have seen photos of roman empire burial sites, (apparently where fallen roman soldiers were buried) where they dug up skeletal structures of cro-magnon man and homo sapien over 7 feet tall. and rome isnt the only place either. Where do you think the tales of "giants" came from? There is even one giant still alive today, hes in the guiness world records. Again I am not surprised at all you have not heard of this.

The other bits you posted about scientists or 'darwinists' declaring things as 'proof' is quite wrong. It's a fact the foot prints were found but any statement they've made about it is simply a hypothesis, which our beloved media no doubt reworded to be 'proof' (readers & viewers don't like big words like hypothesis.)

The media only did as they were told, they listened to one guy speak and their words came out. The media are wise not to bend the claims of others at the risk of a lawsuit. What you need to worry about is that the situation was not revised. Scientists did NOT return to that site to evaluate their conclusions, the site was left for the water to return and the mud to build up. Whatever they stated was no hypothesis, they concluded on the spot or else they would have made further research to discuss they hypothesis. And Darwinists are not scientists, they simply assumed.

A hypothesis is just an educated guess, an attempt at an explanation, which to them at least is plausible. When scientists don't mention other factors, you seem to immediately infer theres a cover up.

My dear, do i really? or is it that there are other possible ideas other than the evolution theory expressed in this situation that were deliberately ignored wich resulted in my suspition. scientists did not know for sure how hard hurricane katrina would hit and im positive that was not a cover up against islamic people saying the hurrican was sent by the greek god of war. A scientist would have at least accepted the possibilty of homonoids existing during the triassic period, not abandon it altogether.

I know there are people that beleive "evolution" as an absolute truth. And I probably sound like that too at times, I just think it has potential, which I don't see in 'creation'.
To me creation is a cop-out, the subject matter is beyond ever being comprehended, god did it, leave it at that. Human curiosity will ensure we never do let it rest, whether we are curious by design - or curious by nature.

keep exercising that thought, how we learn has had the largest affect on the so far discovies of the past. We learn by what we teach and beleive far more than what we see and hear, how we comprehend our discoveries is baised on what we have taught in the past and what we know now. With all our different ideas and opinions it is easy for multiple misunderstandings that will be regarded as truth to be formed from one truth that will be regarded as a lie.

beware of your sources

Then again creationists probably beleive thats inevitable anyway, armageddon and all. :bounce:

yup :bounce:

Oh right.

Darwin couldn't explain how eyes form? I bet he could barely grasp the idea of a huge intergrated computer network as well.
.

yes and for years he held on to this thought to the day of his death, its when upon the point of death that your mind suddenlty becomes more open than you could ever emagine, if you whole life flashes before your eyes in seconds then there must be some phenominal brain activity happening when you feel you only have 2 days to live.

So Its unlikely it was just the eyes that came to his mind. Darwin most likely had the same attitude you did. Theres still the matter of death to life to consider, the creation of chemical compounds in creatures, the efficiency of change over thousands of years in responce to a 12 hour sudden catastrophe. theres just something he realised about evolution that none of us know about that made him change his mind.

I dont see how darwins last words became an argument, if it was me who started it i just wanted to talk about it as its something that interests me.

[Black Heart]

err the foot prints were originally left in mud, which became rock. Fossilised?
Unless things were a might different in the past people & animals don't leave foot prints in rock.
What I'm saying is that the original mud most likely WOULD have some sort of distortion while the mud became rock.

Media are a comedy of errors.

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

oh sorry, i thought you meant the mud had the footprints. But of course there would have been some erosion

i dont do geography so i dont know every detail on that location and what it once was during the time of dinosaurs. but the river wasnt there to begin with and needed to be quite open, footprints would have had time to set, since the climate was warm and didnt rain so much during those ages. Do not quote me exactly how footprints embedded in sandstone or some sedimentary rock ends up being semi-preserved under layers of thick mud. Go ask your science teacher

[edit] no i did not say they were perfect prints either, but the pictures people took of them did clearly show they were dinosaur prints, The large feet of dino's have enough surface area to leave quite a dent, even on solid ground that can take a while for erosion to distort out of recognition. toes and pads were apparent but not detailed if thats the answer you were looking for

the feet patterns that appeared human showed evidence of an arched foot (the center of the foot print was missing) forward pruding large toe (other toes were too distorted to identify) and a deep heel.

[Black Heart]

so do you still think its rational to relay to the world that the prints ARE human?

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

it was rational enough to myself from my studies of the human anatomy to suggest those were indeed human prints,

do you think its more rational to beleive theres a lizard that evolved human-like feet? I guess you do.

Im not responsible for how you determine the situation, you will only regard the scenario in the way that supports what you already believe, despite what it already is. IM not going to waste my time trying to reason every single detail with you that you will no doubt disregard.

[jugganawt]

it was rational enough to myself from my studies of the human anatomy to suggest those were indeed human prints,

do you think its more rational to beleive theres a lizard that evolved human-like feet? I guess you do.

Im not responsible for how you determine the situation, you will only regard the scenario in the way that supports what you already believe, despite what it already is. IM not going to waste my time trying to reason every single detail with you that you will no doubt disregard.

maybe they have mastered the 4th dimension (time) and travelled back and put a foot print next to a dinosaur

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

or aliens with human like feet came to Earth and walked with the dinosaurs.