Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Did we evolve from apes, or are we made from dirt and ribs?

Page 5 of 6 [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

07 Apr 2016, 9:15 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, the missing link has been found! This counters this pseudoscience creationism! This creatinist vid is now an epic fail!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

07 Apr 2016, 9:40 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Doesnt change my point which is that the Bible story is not "evolution". So you should take my friendly advice and stop using the phrase "Biblical evolution" because its a contradiction in terms. Say "Biblical creation" if what you mean is the Biblical account of the origin of everything (humans and everything else).


We don't know how long GOD took to make humans, or what the process was.

However, I disagree that evolution can't be rapid ...

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

So, I still think it is correct to say rib bone organic material transformed into humans is evolution of the rib bone cells.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

07 Apr 2016, 10:39 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:

Doesnt change my point which is that the Bible story is not "evolution". So you should take my friendly advice and stop using the phrase "Biblical evolution" because its a contradiction in terms. Say "Biblical creation" if what you mean is the Biblical account of the origin of everything (humans and everything else).


We don't know how long GOD took to make humans, or what the process was.

However, I disagree that evolution can't be rapid ...

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

So, I still think it is correct to say rib bone organic material transformed into humans is evolution of the rib bone cells.


The bible says the second human was made from the bone of the first human. Not that both Adam and Eve came from some earlier person's bone. Adam still came from mud. So the whole human race did NOT come from bone cells. We all came from mud (if you're taking the Bible literally).

If you're taking the Bible literally it cant be called "evolution". You will confuse and offend your allies (fellow fundies) who deny Darwin style evolution, and confuse your opponents who think that you're on their side.

But that is interesting about the finches. The findings in the article illustrate "Punctuated Equilibrium":the current model of evolution:new species form relatively fast, and then stay the same for a long time rather than go on a steady slow trajectory (more like a staircase than like a slope). But thats "relatively" fast. Twenty years to get a smaller bird beak is still slow evolution compared to going from a bone to a whole human in one afternoon, much less going from non living mud to a human being in one afternoon.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

08 Apr 2016, 3:23 am

auntblabby wrote:
I suspect the authors of the bible tried to explain complex things to us as a parent might with a child.


That is pointed out in the movie, Prometheus.

See here, the cave walls show "GOD" trying to explain stuff to primitive humans.

Image



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

08 Apr 2016, 4:22 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
I suspect the authors of the bible tried to explain complex things to us as a parent might with a child.


That is pointed out in the movie, Prometheus.

See here, the cave walls show "GOD" trying to explain stuff to primitive humans.

Image

Oh, for the love of Nod... not your BS Prometheus claim... again. :roll:

For anyone who might be inclined to debate evolution with LoveNotHate, they should probably read *this* thread before wasting their time doing so:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=264147&start=47



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Apr 2016, 7:53 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
I suspect the authors of the bible tried to explain complex things to us as a parent might with a child.


That is pointed out in the movie, Prometheus.

See here, the cave walls show "GOD" trying to explain stuff to primitive humans.

Image


That's kinda what I was sayin'.

God "fashioned" us out of mud (just like the Bible says). And the means by which he did that was...four billion years of evolution through natural selection.

But when it came time to dictate the Bible to the Bronze Age Israelites God started to monologue about the process:"first came prokarote microbes, then eukarote microbes, then multicellular creatures, and then the first vertabrates, and then fish, and then bony fish,.....). God realized that his primitive human audience was just getting bored and confused by all of this information. So God stopped his lecture, and just said "I fashioned the first pair of humans out of mud. Done. Now here is the Ten Commandments to tell you all how to conduct yourselves. Now run along now." He had to keep it simple and easy because of his audience :D



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Apr 2016, 8:07 am

I think the various authors of the Old Testament were trying to glorify the ethnic group of the Israelites, as well as to impart their version of moral wisdom, assisted mightily by the "force" of the monotheistic God known as Yahweh.

The New Testament was mostly about glorifying Jesus of Nazareth.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,760
Location: the island of defective toy santas

08 Apr 2016, 2:43 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I think the various authors of the Old Testament were trying to glorify the ethnic group of the Israelites, as well as to impart their version of moral wisdom, assisted mightily by the "force" of the monotheistic God known as Yahweh. The New Testament was mostly about glorifying Jesus of Nazareth.

so in your opinion then, is the old testament straighter/less propagandistic?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Apr 2016, 3:39 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I think the various authors of the Old Testament were trying to glorify the ethnic group of the Israelites, as well as to impart their version of moral wisdom, assisted mightily by the "force" of the monotheistic God known as Yahweh.

The New Testament was mostly about glorifying Jesus of Nazareth.


Well duhhhh.

Thanks for the tautologies.


The OT is the imagined history of the Hebrew people and their convenent with a particular deity. And the NT is the biography (actually four different biographies) of a guy rumored to be the son of that deity, with added chapters about his apostles.

Those arent your "opinons" about what they are. Those are essentially the definitions of what the two parts of the Bible are.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Apr 2016, 4:26 pm

The Old Testament is really pretty propagandistic.

But the New Testament takes the cake.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Apr 2016, 7:33 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The Old Testament is really pretty propagandistic.

But the New Testament takes the cake.


I am shocked!

I thought the Bible (talking snakes, dudes living to be 900, etc) was all unbiased journalism!

I didnt know that the Bible was supposed to have a message!

Thanks Captain Obvious for telling us that! :lol:

Now that you informed us all that "in your opinion bachelors tend to be single men, and that water is wet" do you actually have something to say about the subject?



Yigeren
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,606
Location: United States

08 Apr 2016, 7:36 pm

This is a silly argument to have. Nobody is ever going to convince anyone else so why bother? :?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,760
Location: the island of defective toy santas

08 Apr 2016, 7:38 pm

:(



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Apr 2016, 7:44 pm

Yigeren wrote:
This is a silly argument to have. Nobody is ever going to convince anyone else so why bother? :?


I think that there is a consensus that the starting point was inorganic crustal material of the earth (ie dirt, mud, ooze, soup). The only disagreements are in how long it took, and in how many intermediate steps, did it take to get to the end point (man). Was it just one magic step, or was it through many steps over billions of years?



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

08 Apr 2016, 7:47 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Yigeren wrote:
This is a silly argument to have. Nobody is ever going to convince anyone else so why bother? :?


I think that there is a consensus that the starting point was inorganic crustal material of the earth (ie dirt, mud, ooze, soup). The only disagreements are in how long it took, and in how many intermediate steps, did it take to get to the end point (man). Was it just one magic step, or was it through many steps over billions of years?


I believe in a theistic guided evolution that occurred within a long period of time. And this is where the fine tuning argument kicks in, the HBV and the quark mass have to be calibrated to an insanely precise value capable of producing carbon, and thus, DNA.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Yigeren
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,606
Location: United States

08 Apr 2016, 7:57 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Yigeren wrote:
This is a silly argument to have. Nobody is ever going to convince anyone else so why bother? :?


I think that there is a consensus that the starting point was inorganic crustal material of the earth (ie dirt, mud, ooze, soup). The only disagreements are in how long it took, and in how many intermediate steps, did it take to get to the end point (man). Was it just one magic step, or was it through many steps over billions of years?


I don't even agree with that. There isn't enough evidence at this point. There needs to be a lot more research to convince me that we developed from "primordial soup" or anything else, including God or dust. The only thing concerning our creation that I believe right now is that we have evolved and are continuing to evolve.