What do you believe in? Evolution or creationism?

[mrpink]

.. yung mutation ba ng mga xmen eh product ng evolution ..

[nap123]

haba na ng thread na eto. Much better siguro itanong nalang natin kay Bro. Eli Soriano

[CoDer]

For those who want to know about Human Family Tree.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/a_tree.html

A lot of questions here, that's why human Evolution remains to be seen.

Now for the known origin of man.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm

ANATOMY of early man

A morphological description of the initial, mainly dental, fossil remains of Ardipithecus ramidus was published by White et al, 1994. The physical attributes of this hominid show a range of primitive traits, which are most likely character retentions from the last hominid/chimpanzee ancestor. At the same time, some hominid innovations are equally apparent. The currently known traits of Ardipithecus ramidus, in general, can be placed within two categories: ape-like traits and Australopithecine-like traits.

Australopithecine = Human primate.

[oldblue]

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments).

you said it yourself theory is based on the results obtained through observations and experiments which anyone can reproduce.

let's take observation first, how did he Darwin observe evolution, unless he had a time machine, recorded earth's history from day 1 using his time space craft, and while back in the future, played all his observations in his PC. But wait! may PC or TV na ba noon panahon ni Darwin?

and now the experiments, even if Charles Darwin experimented on one stage of the evolution say for instance a whale shapeshifts(pardon the term hehehe) into an elephant, in a given period of time. That still proves nothing about evolution of humans.

[oldblue]

let's think of this evolution in another way, if we did came from fish or animals or monkeys or apes and if these creatures could only speak, they will certainly be heartbroken and hurt. why? bec. nobody respects them anymore, they are our forefathers.

and we civilized humans should apologize to natives. why, bec. they were right all along, to worship the sun, the moon, or even the lion or monkey. The universe gave birth to the solar systems, the systems to the stars, the sun to the planets, the earth to life.

[yebo]

eto pampagulo....

in the bible it is said that God breathe the breath of life on a piece of CLAY and that became Adam.

now there is proof (in one experiment done) that CLAY was essential to the start of life on earth. the structure of clay allows the close contact of simple amino acids (which can be formed from molecules of free carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen by exposure to an electrical discharge, like lightning) to form chemical structures that are very similar to dna and rna. lightning happens all the time now, and the early earth was theorized to be so chaotic lighting was probably striking 100 times in the same place in the same day for millions of years during the time when there was still no life on earth. and from these simple amino acids and rna-like structures formed by lightning strikes on clay came forth the first living things.

soooooo, see people! the twain do meet. science and the bible can exist side by side.

so nasan na yung magmamanicure sa akin nagbati na yata ehehehehe!

[CoDer]

Uy sir yebo. lalakwe nga akwo. hahahahaha....

For further reading.

Human Consciousness

http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/con...sciousness.asp

This is the biggest puzzle an Evolutionist has to overcome.

If only the homo sapien/Human has the seat of consciousness, I wonder what happened to the modern primate since according to the Theory of Evolution we homo sapien and the modern primate all came from Ardipithecus ramidus which science believe came from the last hominid/chimpanzee ancestor.

[CoDer]

Additional Reading on Human Evolution.

http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_evo_intro.htm

Excerpt from the site.

In our modern view, the creation of Adam must conform with the evolutionary creation of humanity. God first completed the physical and biological constitution of humanity. Only after this, did God breathe his Spirit into Adam. There are thus two aspects of the human personality, the physical constitution and the spiritual constitution. Social forces appear to have directed much of the evolution of humanity but we are still subject to natural selection.

Hence Creationism.

[yebo]

... I wonder what happened to the modern primate.....

they lived and now drive hondas

[CoDer]

they lived and now drive hondas

:bwahaha:

[niky]

This is all assuming that less intelligent creatures don't have a seat of consciousness.

Remember, even "dumb" animals have emotions, can identify family, and feel a kinship with us. Dolphins can be friendly with humans, play with them, save them from drowning if they see them in distress... basically, treat us as co-sapients... but they can also be homicidal to other dolphins and sea mammals... and even humans... this indicates a complex personality. If they were merely dumb, non-sapient animals acting on instincts, then they would always act the same way towards humans... no matter what the situation. But they don't. They also observe and learn.

The one barrier to understanding the psyche of animals is language. Parrots can acquire spoken language, but don't have enough brain power to use it effectively. Chimps and Gorillas can acquire language, but it takes a long time. They can, in fact, acquire more language skills than some humans. Dolphins cannot use written or spoken human language, but it is postulated that they may be as intelligent as humans.

How are we to say at what point an animal become a conscious, sapient being and not just a conflicting mass of instincts?

Your links are to holistic living sites. Much of what is posted is philosophical in nature, so please remember that we should take it that way. I like the example of Captain Cook's ship, though (and that part is true!). I touched upon that a few pages back... if what we see is too far outside our ability to comprehend (with our internal virtual reality) we won't be able to see it.

Much of the science quoted in your links is true, but it is interspersed with a lot of opinion and philosophy, so not all of it can be taken at face value.

These sites assume that pre-humans were not conscious or with spirit. We can not assess that assumption at face value, because we do NOT know that.

*oldblue: Darwin came up with his theory by observing living animals, the endpoints of small, very tiny spurts of evolution in the Galapagos. If you have small populations of finches on each Island that look mostly the same but have widely varying types of beaks, adapted to flowers and food on each island, then you have an example of micro-evolution in isolated species (I touched upon this back on page 12.)

That's the "evidence" that Darwin explored. Not fossils. Not dead things. That's why I've said you should go to museums and pore through the literature, the evidence pointing to evolution is vast, and comes from many different sources.

Evolution is a Theory merely because the evidence we see is circumstantial. You cannot reproduce a billion years of evolution in the lab, but you can infer it from evidence. You cannot reproduce a murder in the lab, but you can gather the evidence from traces left behind, grooves on a bullet (to determine what was used), rigor mortis (to determine when) and fingerprints (to determine who). That's what science looks at, evidence. And they have to look at it with an open mind to discover the truth.

That's why scientists did not accept Evolution at first. Their minds were closed to the idea, because they could not conceive of humanity as once being "imperfect". But even the most devout of the serious scientists had to give in and begrudgingly agree over time that the evidence did point that way.

That's also why they can no longer support Creationism. Because none of the evidence points in that direction... sadly. Like I've said... many serious scientists have been looking for signs of God, and they haven't found it yet. Albert Einstein did NOT want to accept quantum mechanics ("God does not play dice with the Universe!) but he had to admit it made sense. Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking both have their spiritual sides (read Sagan's "Contact" to see this). Assuming science and Evolution is anti-God is a big mistake.

*CoDer: Whether or not dinosaurs had feathers is irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory as a whole, because scientists have known for a long time that a subset of dinosaurs evolved into birds. In fact, dinosaurs are anatomically different from the reptiles that predated them, may have had a different brain structure, and may have been warm-blooded like birds.

The Coelecanth, Tuatara, Alligator, Sharks and Rays are all "living fossils" and are the exceptions that prove the rule. According to Evolution, once a design becomes successful, it stops evolving. Each of these creatures is ideally adapted to its ecological niche, thus they have remained nearly unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.

The Evolutionary family tree may be changed every now and then, but that is merely because there are gaps in our knowledge and evidence. That does not affect the Theory of Evolution itself.... just like linguistic change over the decades does not affect the teaching of grammar... it merely affects the amount of info in our dictionaries.

[CoDer]

Dwell on human consciousness, how it evolved? If human was able to attain this level of consciousness then how come chimps are not as brilliant as human considering that science claim we came from the same tree?

If you'll dwell on the social order of animals and its instincts, don't bother because human is still subject to natural selection. Hence only the strongest survive.

It's our human mind that separates us from the primate. You said so yourself

each of these creatures is ideally adapted to its ecological niche, thus they have remained nearly unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.

Then how come chimps never attained the level of consciousness that a Homo sapiens have? You can’t use specie other than primate in line with Human consciousness as an argument here. Human evolved from primate as far as science is concern.

True animals have their instinct (I love watching Discovery Channel and National Geographic) but it’s not at par with the human mind. Can science pin point where exactly during the evolutionary process does the ancestor of Homo erectus started to develop human reason on its own? If it can, then God is a hoax!

Our human mind is what separates us from the breast. If you take away our human mind/reason then we are simply good looking chimps. Then and only then the Theory of Evolution that does not believe that God did all this will make sense.

Remember species evolved. But did it evolved on its own? Or someone is a precursor to all of this?

That's the argument here.

Much of the science quoted in your links is true, but it is interspersed with a lot of opinion and philosophy, so not all of it can be taken at face value.

Even the paleontologist of Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History find some question on the validity of the hypothesis raised on the era in question, it should not be taken at face value also.

One can never believe God by simply considering His face value.

[oldblue]

That's also why they can no longer support Creationism. Because none of the evidence points in that direction... sadly. Like I've said... many serious scientists have been looking for signs of God, and they haven't found it yet.

*niky, bec. they are using the wrong tool to disprove/to prove creationism,
which is science.

science: Scientific proof, then believe. No scientific proof, don't believe.

religion/creationism: With faith, then believe. No faith, don't believe.

faith vs. proof. unconditional vs. conditional.

mauubos lang oras na tin lahat dito but we will never really understand each side.

*city asked me about proof of creationism. I told him that billions believe in it. he told me that numbers dont determine if it's true. again he is being scientific about it.

but we who have the faith believe in the Church - the body of Christ. and what is the symbolism of the Body - the people of God. and there are billions of us. That's our only living proof.

it's not a scientific answer, I agree. but that's the whole idea.


unlike this scenario:
To prove/disprove evolution, one must have a scientific answer.
To prove/disprove creationism, one must also have a scientific answer.

Kind'a unfair dont you think? a little bit one sided in favor of those who want objectivity.

[oldblue]

Hahahahahahah!

Note that the "Theory of Evolution" isn't a "Law of Evolution".

Your hiding under "God is not a science" will not hold up in this conversation. I'd absolutely LOVE to see you defend your faith in front of buddhists/muslims/whatever. Tell if you are, I'd buy tickets. I'd like to see you get a taste of your own medicine.

You act as if you're the "supreme enlightened" and we are infidels.

Also, how can you say that he (or we) don't believe in God? Belief in God (whichever god, the Christian one included) and the Theory of Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. Unless of course you take too literally the story of Genesis.

In case I haven't said it every other post in this thread, I'm a Christian. Not a hardcore Christian, but a Christian nonetheless.

*alpha one, may tanung ako sayo. I assume bata ka pa considering how you post.

if your school organizes an international research project:

Those who are fascinated/interested with evolution, go to Africa.

Those who are fascinated/interested with creationism, go to Europe.

Africa meaning get documents per se about African environment, animal life and behaviour, try to find ways why some scientist believe it's the cradle of human life.

Europe meaning travel European countries, visit churches, uncover ancient literature and manuscripts about the Church's stand on creationism and how did it evolve througout the years.


san ka?

[CoDer]

Uy hindi ko to nakita ah.

That's also why they can no longer support Creationism. Because none of the evidence points in that direction... sadly. Like I've said... many serious scientists have been looking for signs of God, and they haven't found it yet. Albert Einstein did NOT want to accept quantum mechanics ("God does not play dice with the Universe!) but he had to admit it made sense. Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking both have their spiritual sides (read Sagan's "Contact" to see this). Assuming science and Evolution is anti-God is a big mistake.

I have a question... Can science prove that spirit or ghost exist? I have watched a lot of documentaries about this. Sad to say science pinpoint magnetic anomalies as an excuse for this hence according to science spirits or ghost are not true. Hahahaha... dami ko ng kaibigan na nakakita ng white lady, ala man lang kuryente dun sa kanila. Si sir Yebo nga nakakita ng Kapre eh wala naman kuryente don sa lugar na yun.

Would you believe that Historians and Paleontologist concluded that Moses is an Egyptian Prince and that they claim that it was Moses who killed the first born son of remises and not God. And that they also concluded that the origin of the Jews religion is from Egypt which is the Sun God. Believe me a lot of missing puzzle were evident in that documentary and yet they were able to arrive at a certain conclusion. Amazing isn't it. Heck, they're not even sure that the ramains they've unearthed was indeed the first born son of Ramises and yet they arrive at a conclusion na.

Science can never prove that God exist, it cannot even prove that Jesus is God. How much more the miracles of Jesus. Can science prove that Jesus will make a blind man see through miracle alone?

You have completely lost it na.

If Natural Selection will be you basis for the Evolution to exist on its own, then how come chimps the closest relative of human never develop the reason that he have.

Evolution is true but God was there all along. Otherwise Homo sapiens would be acting like chimps.

Get it? It's in the human mind is where science stumble, its difficult to measure it. That's why Homo sapiens is made up two things, the physical and the spiritual.

Now you will say naman. Human soul is not true because science can't prove it. Heck, it cannot even prove the existence of Ghost how much more God.

I’m telling you, dito nag kulang ang Theory of Evolution.

Again specie evolved but God was there all along, otherwise Homo sapiens are nothing but good looking primate.

[CoDer]

I have a friend, a pastor. Who claims that evolution is the works of satan, I told him no pastor God created all this thing and it is good. When God say I will create this in one day, in our time that will be millions of years. When God promised Israel their freedom from Egypt, 400 years muna ang dumaan bago nagkatoto ang promise. How much more the creation of the World and the universe.

How come that the majority of Dinasours were annihilated? because human will not evolved or survive with them around. Dinasours is already perfect as far as natural selection is concern.

Now if you will say that this argument is only true if one is Christian, then let’s dwell on the Human Mind. How come that it was only the Homo sapiens developed a reason and awareness and other primate did not? Science is clear that the Modern man and Modern primate all came from hominid/chimpanzee ancestor (prehistoric na ungoy).

If Natural Selection would be our basis for argument then it is only fair for the chimpanzee and other specie to develop human consciousness and reason, because they need that to survive.

Heck, humans have been responsible for the extinction of a wide variety of specie.

[city]

evolution= observable and with evidences

creationism= make believe( no evidences)

[city]

let's think of this evolution in another way, if we did came from fish or animals or monkeys or apes and if these creatures could only speak, they will certainly be heartbroken and hurt. why? bec. nobody respects them anymore, they are our forefathers.

and we civilized humans should apologize to natives. why, bec. they were right all along, to worship the sun, the moon, or even the lion or monkey. The universe gave birth to the solar systems, the systems to the stars, the sun to the planets, the earth to life.

you're getting funnier every post.

[city]

eto pampagulo....

in the bible it is said that God breathe the breath of life on a piece of CLAY and that became Adam.

now there is proof (in one experiment done) that CLAY was essential to the start of life on earth. the structure of clay allows the close contact of simple amino acids (which can be formed from molecules of free carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen by exposure to an electrical discharge, like lightning) to form chemical structures that are very similar to dna and rna. lightning happens all the time now, and the early earth was theorized to be so chaotic lighting was probably striking 100 times in the same place in the same day for millions of years during the time when there was still no life on earth. and from these simple amino acids and rna-like structures formed by lightning strikes on clay came forth the first living things.

soooooo, see people! the twain do meet. science and the bible can exist side by side.

so nasan na yung magmamanicure sa akin nagbati na yata ehehehehe!

parehas kayo ng thinking ni oldblue...same school maybe?

[city]

coder.....tell us how to prove something that don't exist..

speaking in tongues is not acceptable....anybody can fake that