Do you believe in God and the Bible?

[kast]

one more thing to add to above post: darwin's book was the Origin of Species. Mendell came up with the genetics stuff (i'm pretty sure) and of course, many other contributed to discoveries of the earth's age and stuff like that.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by rude
I honestly dont think we evolved from the apes. Too many or more what if's on the subject of evolution.

Also, the dino fish that was found the coelacanth fish ( I dinosaure that still lives today) Didnt "evolve" like evolution says. This fish has stayed the same, not evolving or anything over a course of millions of years. This fact alone forces a major contradiction in evolution.

Remember, evolution has no real facts, its just one big Hypothises (sp)

It is possible that man evolved along the same lines as apes sharing a common ancestor but then somewhere we split off from them (or they from us). As for the triggers of evolution; while it is true that some animals haven't evolved in millions of years (coelocanth, shark, alligator, etc...) it is true that other animals have done so. Selective breeding plays a large part in the process of evolution. Why is it implausible to think that we branched off from a common ancestry with apes? Is it simply vanity that drives this belief- or is it that it doesn't support certain religious philosophies? Perhaps the origin of life on earth (including man) has some religious AND scientific explantions- just not what we were taught. There is scientific evidence to suggest that man did evolve from a common ancestor with apes yet there is no scientific evidence has been discovered as to the sudden appearance of man. This is where religious proponents will argue faith in God and creation of man in HIS image. But what is HIS image, modern man or ancient man? This is where religion begins to fail because all recorded religion is in textual form. Modern man (homo sapiens sapiens) have been around much longer than written language. To argue that religion was passed down from word of mouth since the dawn of (at least) modern man and has preserved as accurate is ludicrous. The earliest recorded documents only date back to 4000 years ago on clay tablets.

Nature has all sorts of ways for plants and animals to adapt to environmental changes. Let's take humans, for example; humans come in all different sizes. It is a common belief that man first appeared in Africa, most likely, Eithiopia. As populations grew, he spread northward into Asia and then Europe. An interesting phenomena about humans is that in Africa, the average native man stands roughly around six foot tall, while in Europe, the average native man stands about five foot nine. Why is this? It is because evolution has made changes to man that help him survive the climates.

In Africa and very hot, arid climates, it is more desireable to be taller because it is more of an advantage to have a larger surface area to dissipate heat. It helped man to continue to live in this type of climate better. In Europe, man had developed a smaller frame (less surface area) to conserve bodyheat in the cooler temperatures. Now, with the advent of worldwide travel and the man-made convieniences of heat and air conditioning, we have trumped nature in that respect.

Man (Hominid) can be classified into several subspecies. Each one is a derivative of the previous incarnation. Nature continues to evolve man (as well as all species that have not fully adapted to their environments) and it is evident from fossil finds. As little as 28,000 years ago the neanderthal man existed. He lived in small groups, was mechanically inclined to use tools, had a much heavier build than modern man (although not quite Gunter Schlierkamp, sorry Bouncer) and were well muscled. They also had a larger brain cavity yhan today's humans. Yet, they died out. Why? Probably because nature found a better model of human. An interesting tidbit for you; man had eventually lost most of his bodyhair most likely to eliminate the habitat of biting insects such as fleas and ticks which would take hold in dense hair or fur. It's part of nature's evolution on a smaller scale.

That is the way nature works. It makes minor changes to the design of some animals and plants to survive changes in climate, atmosphere, whatever... Sometimes the changes were good and they remain while other times, nature's experiments failed and the species died out. It is unlikely that man will keep the same form (as we know it today) 1 million years from now, if the earth and man doesn't fail by then. The changes are just so slow that we don't perceive them.

Certain animals or plants have seemed unchanged for millions of years such as crocodiles or sharks....even coelocanths. This is because those particular animals have found equilibrium with their environments. Yet, there are several different species of sharks in the world today that didn't exist millions of years ago while other species such as Megladon (a truly gigantic shark) has since been thought extinct. This too is evolution. I am of the impression that man and ape shared a common ancestor which has since gone extinct. There are far too many similarities to apes to discount this from consideration.

[kast]

Yes, along the same line as Apes. That's what I believe and it certainly is possible/probable. The human genome is 95% the same as a baboons. incredible? it's true.

I feel this might stray more into the idea of evolution and how it works rather than the original intention, but I like this stuff anyhow :)

as for your post primal...very good...however, I'd like to know where you got the info about "millions of years without evolving.....crocodiles, sharks..." and all that. I studied anthropology spring semester (last semester) and don't recall that being said.

IF that is accurate, then the reason is of course the equilibrium found with the species of that certain characteristic (mutation) and the environment. HOWEVER, the reason I question it is because as the environment has changed so much, the adaptations may have been too much for one to state that there have been no changes in a certain shark or in crocodiles for "millions of years". Please show me where you got that part of the info cause i'm interested :)

as for the "way nature works"....it's not entirely like that. Mutations (you refer to them as minor changes) don't occur so that they can "survive changesin climate......" Changes (mutations) just occur. the reason is a problem...most mutations don't end in an advantage but instead in death. those that don't end in death (at birth, before, or soon after) result in a defect that impairs them anyway where they will not reproduce (due to malfunctions in reproductive abilities or the mate's preference for a sexual partner (without defects). ONCE IN A WHILE, the environment is fit better for the mutated being. therefore, that mutated being thrives easily and reproduces, while others without the mutation die off (through natural selection). As it reproduces, it passes on the "defect" which has now become an advantage and not a defect.


if i sounded unclear, i'm sorry...that's the best i could explain in such short time at 4:30 a.m. after doing boring homework for an OS class.

-cheers

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by kast


as for your post primal...very good...however, I'd like to know where you got the info about "millions of years without evolving.....crocodiles, sharks..." and all that. I studied anthropology spring semester (last semester) and don't recall that being said.

IF that is accurate, then the reason is of course the equilibrium found with the species of that certain characteristic (mutation) and the environment. HOWEVER, the reason I question it is because as the environment has changed so much, the adaptations may have been too much for one to state that there have been no changes in a certain shark or in crocodiles for "millions of years". Please show me where you got that part of the info cause i'm interested :)

-cheers

Hey Kast, I used a Great White Shark for the unchanged for millions of years comment. Here is the link. The ocean is so much larger than land masses and the sheer volume makes it less susceptible to sudden change as would a typical land mass.

The crocodile comment was based on this link



The comment about the way nature works is basically the same as your description but I was just oversimplifying it for our purposes in the discussion. Yes, certain adaptations do arise from time to time and they often fail but that form of animals and plants that we see today are for lack of a better term, the "latest and greatest" designs, meaning that so far, their designs are working for them to some degree. That is not to say that they have reached their final form, as earth's conditions are always changing and more adaptations will be necessary to continue their success on this planet.

Now that I think about it, I guess that adaptation and evolution are actually two seperate things. Adaptation is a change in a species that does not add to something's genetic makeup like the colors of a lizard darkened in a regional area to better absorb heat from sunlight, whereas evolution would be considered changing the classification or genus of a species like a single cell animal eventually turning (evolving) into a camel or something. So I guess that you could convincingly argue that man has adapted from a common ancestor of apes. But that is for another day :D


*It's a slow boring weekend for me, if you couldn't already tell, lol.

[milwood]

God and man

In a sense, God really is an "idea". It is not merely an imagined thing, but as far as our (human, limited, finite..) ability to comprehend this thing, that is one way to look at it that may help people better understand the concept without getting caught up in man's endless mythologies. We create images in our minds, then in statues, words etc., because we seem to need something tangible, to see, to grab on to. A face or something.
I think it was Freud who thought "religion is bunk", and Jung who said that this is definitely NOT the case, because no matter how you slice it, God/religion has ALWAYS existed in the history of the human race. That is, in every culture, since the beginning of time, man has always found a belief in God, and a inherent contact with (spiritual) ideas, principle, etc. NOT a PARTICULAR God, or religion, just a sense of God, divinity, etc. Therefore, it is indeed real, and has stood the test of time. Then we (in our infinite self-centered wisdom) go about creating our various images of God, and tell everyone that this God of ours is the REAL God, and everyone else's God is the wrong God, and therefore set about JUDGING everyone else (even though we are taught to "judge not lest ye be judged").
Whatever path one chooses to the divine, if that path is one of love, peace, kindness, forgiveness, chances are that is a good one. Different strokes, different folks. God doesn't condemn. God is love.

[JUICE]

this thread could be very usefull to people studing things on evolution and stuff like that. Interesting readings.:)

[kast]

thanks juice. :)

primal...adaptation is part of evolution....don't really think it's seperate...evolution invovles repeated adaptation and natural selection

first there's a mutation, then natural selection as animals adapt and how unable to adapt die, then eventually there may be speciation where one species has evolved to another...all that is evolution...all together....evolution is just a series of adaptations .....hell...evolution could be ONE mutation that helps ONE animal survive better and adapt and therefore "evolve".

and by no means do i feel that you got it wrong or anything....thanks for the links on the crocs and sharks. also, i guess i realize now that it was an oversimplification but in my view, that simplification could've meant something entirely different than evolution with the statement that nature changes things so they can adapt and survive.

anyway, i'm bored too...only i have to work :(

[rude]

I agree that the origin of man has divinly and scientific aspects to it.

but I just cant believe that we started off as simple organisms and over the course of evolution we would be so evolved that us (humans) are intilligent enough to make computers and etc...

If this was the case, we would not be the only humans, their would be other species that would evolve as well.

Natural selection basically is "survival of the fittest". We humans are the best and most adapt species created. With natural selection, other species would slowly as well have evolved to become a smarter more effiecent species like us humans.

here is a good link about homo erectus and etc....

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

Here is a good one questioning evolution......

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

Another good one......

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
It is possible that man evolved along the same lines as apes sharing a common ancestor but then somewhere we split off from them (or they from us). As for the triggers of evolution; while it is true that some animals haven't evolved in millions of years (coelocanth, shark, alligator, etc...) it is true that other animals have done so. Selective breeding plays a large part in the process of evolution. Why is it implausible to think that we branched off from a common ancestry with apes? Is it simply vanity that drives this belief- or is it that it doesn't support certain religious philosophies? Perhaps the origin of life on earth (including man) has some religious AND scientific explantions- just not what we were taught. There is scientific evidence to suggest that man did evolve from a common ancestor with apes yet there is no scientific evidence has been discovered as to the sudden appearance of man. This is where religious proponents will argue faith in God and creation of man in HIS image. But what is HIS image, modern man or ancient man? This is where religion begins to fail because all recorded religion is in textual form. Modern man (homo sapiens sapiens) have been around much longer than written language. To argue that religion was passed down from word of mouth since the dawn of (at least) modern man and has preserved as accurate is ludicrous. The earliest recorded documents only date back to 4000 years ago on clay tablets.

Nature has all sorts of ways for plants and animals to adapt to environmental changes. Let's take humans, for example; humans come in all different sizes. It is a common belief that man first appeared in Africa, most likely, Eithiopia. As populations grew, he spread northward into Asia and then Europe. An interesting phenomena about humans is that in Africa, the average native man stands roughly around six foot tall, while in Europe, the average native man stands about five foot nine. Why is this? It is because evolution has made changes to man that help him survive the climates.

In Africa and very hot, arid climates, it is more desireable to be taller because it is more of an advantage to have a larger surface area to dissipate heat. It helped man to continue to live in this type of climate better. In Europe, man had developed a smaller frame (less surface area) to conserve bodyheat in the cooler temperatures. Now, with the advent of worldwide travel and the man-made convieniences of heat and air conditioning, we have trumped nature in that respect.

Man (Hominid) can be classified into several subspecies. Each one is a derivative of the previous incarnation. Nature continues to evolve man (as well as all species that have not fully adapted to their environments) and it is evident from fossil finds. As little as 28,000 years ago the neanderthal man existed. He lived in small groups, was mechanically inclined to use tools, had a much heavier build than modern man (although not quite Gunter Schlierkamp, sorry Bouncer) and were well muscled. They also had a larger brain cavity yhan today's humans. Yet, they died out. Why? Probably because nature found a better model of human. An interesting tidbit for you; man had eventually lost most of his bodyhair most likely to eliminate the habitat of biting insects such as fleas and ticks which would take hold in dense hair or fur. It's part of nature's evolution on a smaller scale.

That is the way nature works. It makes minor changes to the design of some animals and plants to survive changes in climate, atmosphere, whatever... Sometimes the changes were good and they remain while other times, nature's experiments failed and the species died out. It is unlikely that man will keep the same form (as we know it today) 1 million years from now, if the earth and man doesn't fail by then. The changes are just so slow that we don't perceive them.

Certain animals or plants have seemed unchanged for millions of years such as crocodiles or sharks....even coelocanths. This is because those particular animals have found equilibrium with their environments. Yet, there are several different species of sharks in the world today that didn't exist millions of years ago while other species such as Megladon (a truly gigantic shark) has since been thought extinct. This too is evolution. I am of the impression that man and ape shared a common ancestor which has since gone extinct. There are far too many similarities to apes to discount this from consideration.

[JUICE]

Originally posted by rude
I agree that the origin of man has divinly and scientific aspects to it.

but I just cant believe that we started off as simple organisms and over the course of evolution we would be so evolved that us (humans) are intilligent enough to make computers and etc...

If this was the case, we would not be the only humans, their would be other species that would evolve as well.

Natural selection basically is "survival of the fittest". We humans are the best and most adapt species created. With natural selection, other species would slowly as well have evolved to become a smarter more effiecent species like us humans.

here is a good link about homo erectus and etc....

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

Here is a good one questioning evolution......

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

Another good one......

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

:)

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by rude
I agree that the origin of man has divinly and scientific aspects to it.

but I just cant believe that we started off as simple organisms and over the course of evolution we would be so evolved that us (humans) are intilligent enough to make computers and etc...

If this was the case, we would not be the only humans, their would be other species that would evolve as well.

Natural selection basically is "survival of the fittest". We humans are the best and most adapt species created. With natural selection, other species would slowly as well have evolved to become a smarter more effiecent species like us humans.

here is a good link about homo erectus and etc....

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

Here is a good one questioning evolution......

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

Another good one......

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

Well, humans were the ones who adapted best to variable conditions. They live in every climate and most elevations. We are a tool using animal that developed ingenuity farther ahead than most animals. We have out-populated most other species on earth- especially the large animals- in some cases, because of our longevity. In other cases, because of our natural resource consumption levels. Our lifespan gives us a distinct advantage over other animals in that we may learn more in our lifetime (than say in early man) and thus educate educate our children moreso than other animals. We have developed new methods for food production and have moved from hunter-gatherers to specialized jobs in which we don't spend the better part of our days finding food to survive like other animals. This is a huge advantage over the rest of the animal kingdom because we have much more time to make improvements in our lifestyles. Leisure time also spawns learning and introspection. The animal kingdom didn't stand a chance once our numbers grew to a substantial amount. We overhunted many species reducing their numbers and even drove them into extinction, in some cases. An example of this would be that in the early 1800's, there were approximately 40 million bison roaming North America an by the late part of the century, they numbered in the hundreds. What animal could compete with humans at this point in earth's history?

That is not to say that we are the only animal with strong organizational capabilities. The bees have a highly evolved system, much like the ants. They too, are specialized in their jobs. In both cases, there is a heirarchy- workers, soldiers and a queen. Dolphins are probably the most intelligent species outside of man. Why didn't they take over the world? Because it was man's turn. Perhaps if man dies out they will become the next dominant force on earth. If not for the sudden mass extinction of the dinosaurs, man may very well have not become the dominant force in nature today. It could very well have been lizards. But the climate changed and didn't support the large beasts like that anymore. Here's a trivia bit for everyone; no animal with a bodyweight over 40lbs or a length of over 3 feet had survived the dinosaur extinction period. Every animal alive today has since evolved from that sized creature over millions of years. It is probable that the climate changed and as it became colder, plants and animals died out either from starvation or from inability to adapt to the climate change. Again, this would make a theoretical connection with my prior post on how man adapted and became smaller to conserve bodyheat and minimalize the volume of food necessary to support such life.

Rude, in geological time, man hasn't been here very long at all. When you look at how old the earth is, the time that we've existed as modern man has been but a drop in the geological time bucket. Other animals may very well be evolving into smarter and more efficient lifeforms but we wouldn't know it because these changes do not happen quickly. They take millions of years, in many cases. Humans happened to be the right species at the right point in time.

As far as being the only humans to evolve, we know that there were other forms of pre-modern man. They died out either by inability to adapt to changes in their environment or food supply or possibly even interbred, in some cases where there were dual lineages living alongside each other. We know that Neaderthal man (they closelyphysically resembled modern Eskimos) and Homo Sapiens lived alongside each other for a period of time in Europe.

Yes, we humans are currently the best adapted species here on earth (at this point in time) but there are no guarantees that environment won't change again. In fact, it most certainly will change again and is right now but it happens slowly so that we don't notice the change as much. History of modern man doesn't date back very far at all and we must consider that the earth goes through an ice age every 100,000 years or so. What will happen to us then? We do have an ability to adapt to change but never before had humans have such vast numbers on this planet. When the ice age does come, we will slowly lose the battle with nature, as our habitat and food supplies will most certainly dwindle. Some may survive, surely but many others will not. Perhaps then, some other form of life will outnumber us or even kill us off. It might not even be an animal like we think of today, it could be a virus or something. We just don't know.

[bad14u]

Originally posted by goliath
bad14u - yes, creation of anything, anything at all, implies imperfection. as i said before, a perfect being would not create anything because it has no need or desire for anything.

Sorry to disagree...but creation of anything doesn't mean imperfection with the person but imperfection with their surroundings!

[bad14u]

Originally posted by goliath
. In the creation of the universe and man, hate, murder, disease, all follow. would a loving god create all of these horrible things, and not just create them, but create them in his image?

God did not create hate, murder or disease! Man, the imperfect one, created them!

[goliath]

Originally posted by bad14u
God did not create hate, murder or disease! Man, the imperfect one, created them!

then man created god, and the circle continues. :gives:

[Bouncer]

Originally posted by goliath
then man created god, and the circle continues. :gives:

i agree. lol. this topic is getting boring. everyone can believe in what they want.

[bad14u]

Originally posted by goliath
then man created god, and the circle continues. :gives:

Circle? What circle? You can believe what you want and pray to whoever! My whole argument was with the statement that creation of anything means imperfection!