How we as humans came to be

[evmori]

firstpusk,

Clarity isn't the issue. Evolution is. Living things adapt & sometimes changes occur. They don't evolve.

My post was stating if we (humans) evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys still exist? Your tree anolgy was way off base & completely pointless.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

Ed,

 

I didn't make an analogy about trees, littlebillie did. I think your argument is pointless. Pointless because no one claims that humans evolved from apes or monkeys but creationists that are trying to misrepresent evolution. I already pointed out that this formulation of yours was inaccurate. Pointless because even if your formulation were accurate, it would not preclude both species from surviving.

 

I disagree with you evolution isn't the issue, the issue is indeed clarity. The problem you have with making points is that you clearly don't understand what you are arguing against. You want to define evolution in a way that clearly suits your purpose of denial. You clearly want to find an argument that will dismiss the theory without having to understand it. The monkey argument you make is a rhetorical trick a sound bite that is clearly pointless to the issue at hand. Do some reading.

 

 

[Venturer2002]

In no way did I attack science.

 

What I stated was that Merlin must have been doing what Christians & Jews have done for millenia; interpret science within the scope of his own faith.

 

Faith? Atheists have faith? Yes! Because humans are (at least from what I've read) hard-wired to search for and accept some sort of deity. Many turn to God, and others to false gods. When people reject belief in deity, they themselves contradict their principles by elevating humans to god-like status.

 

For, when all gods are gone, and God is rejected, where else is there to turn but humankind?

 

 

[evmori]

firstpusk,

Sorry. Got people confused.

 

Correct me if I' wrong, but didn't Darwin come up with the theory of evolution? And in that theory, didn't he feel humans evolved form apes? Was he a creationist prior?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

Ed,

 

Speculations about evolution go back to the time of ancient Greece. Darwin formulated a theory to explain the process of evolution - natural selection. He explained how it worked in his book by comparing it to the kind of selective breeding done by farmers.

 

Darwin did claim humans had a common ancestor with the apes, not that we were decended from chimps or gorillas. That is why the argument is not valid. Oh, and yes, Darwin was a creationist earlier in life.

[ScoutParent]

And the first organisms that started this evolutionary chain came from...?

[firstpusk]

"And the first organisms that started this evolutionary chain came from...?"

 

ScoutParent,

 

A very interesting philosophical question but one totally separate from evolution. The validity of evolution does not rely on a definitive answer of your question. There are of course a variety of different answers depending on to whom you talk. The science that studies the question is referred to as abiogenesis.

 

Evolutionary biology is a science that tries to explain the diversity of life that exists and the history of that life. The starting point was something Darwin mentioned but (wisely?) did not try to explain.

 

 

[ScoutParent]

So this exact science of evolution starts in the middle and that's ok with you? Whereas creation as related to us in Genesis starts with God creating the heavens and earth.

 

 

"Abiogenisis is a theory that certain low forms of living matter can come from non-living material."

 

Sounds strikingly similiar to how God created Adam from the dust of the earth to me.

 

 

"The validity of evolution does not rely on a definitive answer of your question."

 

Just say I throw you the bone and give you that point, what about the missing link (another insignificant item in the equation?) or the finds that have been improperly reconstructed and corrected later (is that too just so what material?). There are far more questions than answers in the theory of evolution and far too much doubt in it's validity by scientists for a reasoning logical person to repudiate other alternatives.

[firstpusk]

The science that Darwin first explained started with what could be described, the amazing diversity of life. Darwin applied the scientific method properly and avoided pointless speculation.

 

Yes, the creation story in Genesis starts at the beginning and is stirring. I read it like sacred poetry. It has truth and speaks to the heart, but should not be read like a newspaper account or a science textbook. It is the understanding that the people telling the creation stories of Genesis had, not ours. Not that one should belittle them or the story. It answered the questions they asked in their day. Many of our questions, so many centuries later, are of a different nature. For us to try to make our questions fit their answer is to lack respect for our seeking and theirs, too.

 

Evolution, or the term that Darwin used - descent with modification by means of natural selection, explains the diversity of life on earth quite effectively. The findings of other sciences such as astronomy, geology and genetics dovetail nicely with those of evolutionary biology. The ancient earth, mass extinctions and the development of new species over time all fit the evolutionary model. The alternative you speak of, using the first few chapters of Genesis as a science text can not tell us why the trilobites or dinosaurs are extinct. It does not even speak to the question. It can not tell us if Australiopithicus aferensis was related to us. The ancient Hebrews knew nothing of such things.

 

Yes, there are more questions. Among them the very beginning of life hundreds of millions of years ago. But in the real world that is how things work. Our minds solve one problem but see in the solution a dozen more difficult questions to ponder. Such is science. You read too much fictional science and not enough of the real thing. If you understood evolution, you would know that at this time there is no viable scientific alternative. But then again, according to you I am not a reasoning or logical person.

[ScoutParent]

FirstPusk writes the following:

 

"Among them the very beginning of life hundreds of millions of years ago. But in the real world that is how things work. Our minds solve one problem but see in the solution a dozen more difficult questions to ponder. Such is science. You read too much fictional science and not enough of the real thing. If you understood evolution, you would know that at this time there is no viable scientific alternative. But then again, according to you I am not a reasoning or logical person."

 

 

FirstPusk, please reread what you wrote. I am not as sensitive as you are or I would take offense at your insinuations. Your assessment that I said you are not a reasoning or logical person is only true if you repudiate other alternatives to evolution. So I guess you are the actually labeling yourself--please don't try to assess the responsibility on me then. And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers. We that to be true, would we have cancer,aids, downs syndrome, etc? I would certainly hope not.

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

Try me ScoutParent. Give me one of those viable scientific theories that I "may not be aware of...". Go ahead, throw me another bone, provide me with your enlightenment. Any thinking logical person should be able to come up with one in no time. I will be waiting. I am sure you won't search in vain. By the way, creationism is not a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

[slontwovvy]

I believe in both creationism and evolutionism. It is possible!

 

God created the universe (where do you think the energy to start the big bang came from?). Then God facilitated the beginnings of life. Evolution (guided by God) continued the work.

[Rooster7]

I believe it's possible that God used evolution to create the inhabitants of this world. However, I don't believe it's likely. More importantly, I know it wasn't necessary. God's power is not limited. He knows each one of us intimately. Creating the world and its creatures in seven days or even in one second would be a small feat in comparison.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[firstpusk]

Rooster7 and slontwovvy,

 

Your personal beliefs are cool with me. Any way you want to integrate your beliefs is fine. I would argue that your personal beliefs and scientific theory are still two different things.

[ScoutParent]

Merlyn and FirstPusk:

 

Which human race is genetically superior to the others?