|
Post by rdywenur on Jul 4, 2007 10:56:02 GMT -7
Which do you believe in. I tend to go with creation as I never felt I have evolved from the monkey (Pawian we are not related..hahaha) Last night an interesting show on this on Coast To Coast AM.
Creationism & Evolution Starting in the first hour, mechanical & design engineer Bill Morgan discussed why he believes in creationism and what he sees as flaws in the theory of evolution. If people evolved from bacteria there should be millions of transitional forms, but the body of observable evidence does not support this, he said. Evidence for the mutation of species falls woefully short but what is supported is the idea that people make people, birds make birds, he argued.
Morgan believes the story of creation and its timeline as presented in the Bible are true, including the idea that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old. He disputed scientific dating methods which show that Earth and its life forms go back many millions of years. This dating is flawed because it's based on scientists' assumptions rather than actual evidence, he suggested.
For more information on creationism, he recommended the following sites: icr.org answersingenesis.org creationism.org
|
|
Pawian
European
Have you seen my frog?
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by Pawian on Jul 4, 2007 11:21:00 GMT -7
Which do you believe in. I tend to go with creation as I never felt I have evolved from the monkey (Pawian we are not related..hahaha) One doesn`t seclude the other. To make everybody happy we can combine these two concepts. The evolution had been going on for millions of years when eventually soul and psyche were created for some tribes of more intelligent apes.
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Jul 4, 2007 11:21:42 GMT -7
As a firm believer in the existence of God and his action in the origin of the Universe, as well as being an ex-scientist who was involved in astronomy and cosmology, I just cannot understand why people so firmly wish to make belief one or the other. There is considerable difference between God the creator of the Universe and God the creator of the inhabitants of the Earth as suddenly human beings. This latter attitude completely ignores the fossils of numerous pre-human beings who evolved/developed over millions of years before mankind appeared to spoil the planet. Incontrovertible evidence (as far as much of science is 'evidence') demonstrates these pre-humans and also the time scale over which they existed until an evolutionary incident occurred that started the rise of Man. So I see no conflict whatsoever against God the creator of the Universe, and Evolution of many sorts of 'life' which developed into mankind as we now know it. I believe that the life that God created was the single cell 'life' that evolved into multi-cells and thence through the many branches to the final branch from which homo sapiens evolved. I do not believe that God intended to interfere in whatever life developed on Earth, and events have shown this is so - we have the wonderful gift of life and it is in our hands what we do with it (and so far we haven't done very well). I have never heard of this Bill Morgan, but all his arguments are the ones that were used on the pre-pre-Victorian eras and against which all the advances in our knowledge deny his views. Leslie
|
|
scatts
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 812
|
Post by scatts on Jul 4, 2007 14:15:05 GMT -7
Evolution. I have difficulty believing that if God is everything he's cracked up to be that he'd create a single celled organism and hope for the best. Why not just create something even better than we are? I do believe there is 'something' out there, just nothing like anyone's description of God. Edit to add that your God may of course be female!
|
|
george
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 568
|
Post by george on Jul 4, 2007 14:33:21 GMT -7
I have to agree with Scatts on this one. Our exsistence seems more like a accident than something purposely put forward. You would think our creator could of thought something better when you think hard about it. Is there a God? I hope so. Is he a loving God? Hope so. But i'm not sure. In any event, i certainly don't think he's the God we were taught about in Polish catholic school. That stuff i threw out the window a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Jul 4, 2007 15:04:51 GMT -7
Chris
I think perhaps you have the most important aspect of God and creation. Just the simple fact that you believe in God and abide in his ways as he demands with the guidance of his ten Commandments. It is all there.
Every thing is simple, it is just we as man have not the ability to fully understand his {Gods} works. Our minds do not fully comprehend of non-ending time as infinite. We are limited by our frailties.
But, of the creatures that God made to populate the earth with, he created man as special. For it is all written in the Bible of creation, but, man has not the reasoning power to understand fully the meaning.
Take for example the ancients. One group was to build a tower of which to reach heaven by and be an equal to God, it was the tower of babel and for their protection from them selves, they were thrown into a confused state of non-understanding of one another, as such, were with the inability to function in the construction. For if there efforts had not been interceded with by Gods will, the men would have reached the limits of structure integrity, and the resulting end, would have been a loss in faith/belief of the existence of God.
Think for perhaps out of the box, a moment of our time, is perhaps equal to a hundred years? Or more? A day in our time, is perhaps a thousand years in Gods time? There were not always the morning or night until this was created.
And truly, other then our {mans} view of time, what actually is time? Or, time is infinite with out beginning or ending.
simply read the bible, both the old testament and new. The answers are there, it just must be read with understanding.
Also, not to worry of being descended from an ape or other creature, or for that matter the mystery of fossil bones of man like creatures. Just think out side the box of parallel evolution of man type creatures not not man.
If you wish to more closely see the creation of Gods love, then look deeply into your own reflection in the looking glass, for there you will see what he loved best.
We possess the powers of reasoning of understanding, if we step out of the box of common nonsense.
{This is an area most best for that of Troubledgoodangel to speak of}
Charles
|
|
jeanne
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 544
|
Post by jeanne on Jul 4, 2007 16:55:58 GMT -7
I don't see creationism and evolution as being that much in conflict with each other. I believe any evolution had to be guided by the superior intelligence of our God. And I also believe that somewhere along the line God endowed man with a soul, which makes him the crowning glory of creation and separates him from the other creatures, and that all this was part of the plan of God which is far beyond our ability to comprehend or second-guess.
Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Jul 5, 2007 2:57:25 GMT -7
It may be too simple for people to believe, but there is a substantial theory about why/how homo sapiens developed from the same lifeline branches that contained the apes. Until not very long ago there was the 'Big Brain' theory in which homo sapiens evolved from the lifeline that contained the branches of the apes and any other form of life because he had a bigger brain and hence had a larger capacity to think more widely. However, as in so many things (and not only in science) that we think are proven, the Big Brain theory was shown as not standing up against the facts, as some branches of pre-humans were shown to have brain even larger than homo! The current view is that homo developed from the apes and such like when the climate of the Earth changed and flat prairies with few trees developed. The difference between homo and his ancestors was that homo learned bipedalism, i.e. he learned to stand on two legs so that he could see across this new environment. The quadrupeds were lost because, being on all fours they could see only a little way and hence their reasoning power was also limited. Onward man on two feet!! Again, proof that there were some other forms of life before homo sapiens. Leslie
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Jul 5, 2007 9:36:20 GMT -7
Leslie
I see also of your interest and past studies in Anthropology, it is a very interesting subject.. I like also the {Big Brain Theory} as the tool of advancement out of the trees and across the savanna land of Kenya. With the survival requirement of thinking {hunting} over the groups Dependant upon gathering only for their food supply.
But, here is a catch in regards to a link between the family of primate, and to that of Homo-Sapien. The sketal structure of the family of primate, will not support bi-pedal locomotion. The close family of early bipedal arthropods, was as you have brought forward, possessed the hip skeletal system for both bipedality and tree climbing, such as examples of {Australopithecus/Ramapithecus and such}. A family of anthropoids that used their life run and died out for lack of ability to evolve in the competition of life.
The question of origin of man {Homo-Sapien} becomes very heated in the emergence of Neanderthal of what, 235.000 years past to 30.000 years. The sudden emergence of Cro-Magnon appears in the same picture of 30.000 years in the disappearance of the Neanderthal line.
It is not a question of which group possessed the most large brain, for as the Neanderthal group was the winner over the Cro-Magnon family group. In body size and weight with all appearance, Cro-Magnon was very exact to modern Homo-Sapien with exception Cro-magnon was of greater size in build with dimension of exact similar to that of modern man.
In as much to inter-breeding of Cro-magnon with Neanderthal, it could not have occurred for they are two different specious, nature will not allow the enter breeding of unlike specious.
So the question is: What happened to Neanderthal? They were not stupid for they survived the Ice age. Possessed sense of life after death, were highly skilled in the manner of tool making and very advanced weapons for their time {ever try to chip out a flint point for an arrow/spear or axe?} I attempted very hard for a field expedition project, and failed miserably.
Interesting subject!
Charles
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Jul 5, 2007 10:02:16 GMT -7
Evolution plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Jul 5, 2007 11:17:38 GMT -7
Charles What you raise is but one of the many controversies in the evolution of homo sapiens - and a number of theories are to be welcomed: an astronomy Professor of mine made the comment 'If someone comes up with a theory which he/she feels is the only answer, it is almost certain to be wrong!' Part of the controversy is that Neanderthal and Sapiens existed at the same time. One of the theories is that although Neanderthal had a large brain, as happens even today, not all parts of that brain were used, whereas Sapiens was more flexible in their thinking - better ways of hunting etc. and so they dominated to such an extent that Neanderthal just couldn't compete, and like many earlier branches pre-almost-human just gave way in this competition with each other. As far as development from 'ape man' to homo is concerned, one of the branches of that major branch realised to some extent that with the loss of the forests to the prairies, they had to do something, so for some of their time they attempted bipedalism - unfortunately at the beginning the change fro quad to bi proved almost too difficult, but some started to make it. At one time the anthropologists thought that 'Lucy' was the missing link, but it was discovered that her brain was far too small. The line seemed to come to an insolvable end until Kenya man was discovered who provided sufficient of the developmental links to more than suggest he was the 'missing link'. However, back to the starter subject, there must have been a start to it all - I think this is a matter of faith, not proof, but Evolution provides hard facts. It certainly is a fascinating interest and study, but difficult. I'm pleased I switched to the development (through training) of modern man! Leslie
|
|
|
Post by rdywenur on Jul 5, 2007 12:20:09 GMT -7
Well what caught my interest is that he said there is no evidence of evolution. Where is the evidence of transitons. There are none. Not one fossil only what we know things as they are or things that have become extinct. He also said the scientists measure the age of earth by light years they do not know how old earth really is. I felt he had some good arguments. But then I am not a scientist.
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Jul 5, 2007 14:18:17 GMT -7
Chris (rdy..)
Kenyan man is fossil evidence of transition as far as scientific evidence (and religious) evidence go. Initially another African fossil the anthropologists called Lucy was thought to be the link, but later investigation showed this could not be so. But Kenyan Man satisfies all the criteria.
I wouldn't trust a thing that man says if he said 'the scientists measure the age of earth by light years they do not know how old earth really is.' Real scientists use 'Parsecs' as a measure of distance, but even if they used Light Years, one LY is the distance of 6 million million miles used, obviously, for the distance from the Earth out to space, The size of the Earth is measured in miles or kilometers and its age in thousands of millions of YEARS - the exact age is not known but estimates put it at about 4,000 million years! Leslie
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Jul 5, 2007 16:38:51 GMT -7
Chris (rdy..) Kenyan man is fossil evidence of transition as far as scientific evidence (and religious) evidence go. Initially another African fossil the anthropologists called Lucy was thought to be the link, but later investigation showed this could not be so. But Kenyan Man satisfies all the criteria. I wouldn't trust a thing that man says if he said 'the scientists measure the age of earth by light years they do not know how old earth really is.' Real scientists use 'Parsecs' as a measure of distance, but even if they used Light Years, one LY is the distance of 6 million million miles used, obviously, for the distance from the Earth out to space, The size of the Earth is measured in miles or kilometers and its age in thousands of millions of YEARS - the exact age is not known but estimates put it at about 4,000 million years! Leslie Keep up the excellent thoughts Leslie I forgot of the Kenyan man find by Dr. leakey {Maeve} on the Lake Turkana dig {was once a lake}. A part of the Rift valley. It would so seem of this find as being that of very important for the features are man like in the flat face and small teeth. A question on this find though is: Only one example was located. the following question is: was this found example an exception, or was this one member of many of this varient? Charles
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Jul 6, 2007 1:49:49 GMT -7
Charles As far as I am aware, from memory, there was the only one fossil found, but this is not unusual as their discoveries are reliant on so many factors, especially the depths at which found, movements pf the earth, the type of earth (some types just eat fossil bones!). Lucy, as far as I know or remember was the only fossil of her ilk found - I think though that they lost interest in her when Kenyan Man was found. Leslie
|
|