Evolution My ToE

[tas8831]

Looking at it from a straight biological viewpoint, at the point that man's intellectual capability is greater than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

That does not nullify all of the other criteria, sorry.

 

[Audie]

That does not nullify all of the other criteria, sorry.

Seriously. Next, we have to look at the bat's flying ability
as a Sign of special creation.

I hope there is an afterlife, just so our creos can meet their
ancestors, make it a long long receiving line back to where
they are no longer H sapies or even Homo.

Let the godly creos face them, and deny that their
struggles and courage did anything to make the creos
lives possible. Let them deny their ancestors to their
faces.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, in fact, I do not. In fact, exactly the opposite.

I find the process amazing, yes. But it is NOT a miracle: it conforms at each stage to the physical laws as we know them. And that is the point: no violation of natural laws is required. No intervention by a supernatural being is required. it is a physical process and, as long as the mothier eats and breathes, *will* happen by itself.


And if you want to consider the physical laws as being dictated by God, then I have no problem with that. But there is no supernatural intervention in biological development. And there is no supernatural involved in the evolution of species.



Killing people? Not the point. But yes, 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Every living thing eventually dies.

But those are true whether or not you believe in evolution. So, even if some God set things running, it is still a death machine.

It did not have to be. For humans. (God never offered the opportunity to live forever to animals.) Which is why Jesus was born and came to the earth as a human being. He died, but then was resurrected. I realize you probably don't believe this, but I do. And oddly enough, when God made the first man and woman He offered them everlasting life. Not the animals, yes, I know you think man is an animal, but for the sake of this discussion I will just say that God did not instill the same qualities in animals as He did in Adam and Eve. Now it seems amazing to me that so far insofar as I know, humans are the only ones of all the other beings who consider the possibility of eternal life, never dying. I don't think it's something he evolved to, but was given by God. As far as the physical, yes, they are set in motion by God. However, eternal life is promised.
John 6:40 - "For it is My Father's will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
I don't think you believe in this. I do. I did not always believe this way. But now I do.
Getting back to the natural forces in life. Yes, while I believe God can intervene when He wants to, He set up the motion of life but does not control every action and difference and gene splitting. However, one day He will change the human body so that we do not deteriorate as time goes by.

 

[YoursTrue]

That does not nullify all of the other criteria, sorry.

I didn't say it did. I can't explain everything. But the fact remains that humans alone possess a far greater intellect than any animal.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that it's not a miracle. It happens all the time, and comes about by completely natural, physical processes.
How do you reconcile your personal incredulity with a basic fact of life?


I guess you don't. You just believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it.
I couldn't live my life like that but to each his own, I guess.

I can't give you my own experience now, and I am not saying that life as we know it now is not continued by so-called natural processes. But to say that life came about by itself without divine making, and things like insects, blood, and veins are results of billions of years of time and evolution is not something I believe now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting in what way? How do you view it in light of the points I made in my last post?


I'd rather that you didn't pass over the point and gallop off into another one again.
I'd love for you to address my point for a change. I think your avoidance of the points being made is one of the major sticking points in your ability to understand the subject matter.

All you seem to have is one giant argument from incredulity/ignorance here ... "I can't imagine how A could be true so it must be false." It's an error in reasoning which is compounded every time you brush off the evidence presented to you and move onto something else without actually considering it.

Of course you could be wrong. Why do you think it is that thousands and thousands of independent groups of scientists all over the world for the last 160 years have all contributed evidence that points directly to the reality of evolution and nobody has yet managed to produce one piece of evidence that would falsify the theory? Why do you think it is that you, who has never conducted an experiment or a study, have never studied the subject matter in any depth, never so much as taken a course on the subject, doesn't stick to the subject matter on this forum and instead jumps all over the place; are more informed on this subject matter than all the world's scientists who actually study the subject matter in great depth and can demonstrate their claims? How is it that you know more than everybody else on this?

You are are wrong on this subject. Evolution is a fact of life.

I'm not sure what you mean by falsify the theory. There is a theory. Allow me to say if I have the basic tenet of the theory correct. I'd like to start at the beginning. That is, the idea that life started (possibly out of water) when the first cells started multiplying. Would you say that's a beginning?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope.

What of it?

Well, let's put it this way: humans are considered the last (or latest) in the line of evolution, are they not? If I can follow you, let's start there. Yes or no. Are humans considered by scientists to be the last (or latest, for lack of a better term) in the line of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, let's put it this way: humans are considered the last (or latest) in the line of evolution, are they not? If I can follow you, let's start there. Yes or no. Are humans considered by scientists to be the last (or latest, for lack of a better term) in the line of evolution?

NO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Looking at it from a straight biological viewpoint, at the point that man's intellectual capability is greater than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

So. Traits vary between species. Even related species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, let's put it this way: humans are considered the last (or latest) in the line of evolution, are they not? If I can follow you, let's start there. Yes or no. Are humans considered by scientists to be the last (or latest, for lack of a better term) in the line of evolution?

Humans are not an endpoint. We are still evolving.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, in fact, I do not. In fact, exactly the opposite.

I find the process amazing, yes. But it is NOT a miracle: it conforms at each stage to the physical laws as we know them. And that is the point: no violation of natural laws is required. No intervention by a supernatural being is required. it is a physical process and, as long as the mothier eats and breathes, *will* happen by itself.

The process of (human) birth is amazing. Beyond understanding by explaining it as a result of evolution from a unicell, as far as I am concerned. (Yes, doctors and scientists can examine it and intervene with medicine and so forth.) So I mean the astounding, amazing, miraculous in that sense of the process of two cells uniting and burgeoning to form skin, heart, muscles of the human body and other bodies with 'built-in' electrical currents. Yes, for me -- likely not you -- it's too amazing to have come about in the ability to form a person without the property to live having been placed there in the beginning by God. Does that mean that every living creature is a direct creation of God? Only in the sense that He gave the ability to continue itself. And there have been occasions where He does have a "direct connection."

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting in what way? How do you view it in light of the points I made in my last post?


I'd rather that you didn't pass over the point and gallop off into another one again.
I'd love for you to address my point for a change. I think your avoidance of the points being made is one of the major sticking points in your ability to understand the subject matter.

All you seem to have is one giant argument from incredulity/ignorance here ... "I can't imagine how A could be true so it must be false." It's an error in reasoning which is compounded every time you brush off the evidence presented to you and move onto something else without actually considering it.

I can't imagine that life came about by chance, without an initial Giver of life, a prime cause, an intelligence. The complicated structure of humans do not come about unless two tiny cells are united. Do I think that it is not possible for cells to turn into 'other' cells? No, I do not think that is impossible. Bacteria can move, morph, develop into another form of bacteria. Similarly, I believe that populations (animal and human) that have migrated form populations with unique characteristics, such as humans with varying characteristics unique to a particular population.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say it did. I can't explain everything

or anything, for that matter....





(sorry, couldn't help myself)

But the fact remains that humans alone possess a far greater intellect than any animal.

And cheetah's are the fastest runners.

What of it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, let's put it this way: humans are considered the last (or latest) in the line of evolution, are they not?

ALL extant species are "the latest in line" of evolution, in the specific lineages they represent.
That goes for humans, chimps, lions, housecats, dogs, elephants, goldfish, bacteria, funghi,.... ALL species that are alive today.

We are not "more evolved" then the other living things on this planet.

If I can follow you, let's start there. Yes or no. Are humans considered by scientists to be the last (or latest, for lack of a better term) in the line of evolution?

All extant species are the "latest" in their respective lineages.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't imagine that life came about by chance, without an initial Giver of life, a prime cause, an intelligence.

I'm sure you are aware that the specific limitations of your imaginations, don't necessarily represent the limitations of what natural processes can or can not do?

The complicated structure of humans do not come about unless two tiny cells are united. Do I think that it is not possible for cells to turn into 'other' cells? No, I do not think that is impossible. Bacteria can move, morph, develop into another form of bacteria. Similarly, I believe that populations (animal and human) that have migrated form populations with unique characteristics, such as humans with varying characteristics unique to a particular population.

Now take the same process (=accumulation of micro-change) that made "unique characteristics" develop in an isolated human population over the course of a mere few thousand years in a relatively stable environment, and now stretch that process out over the course of 3.8 billion years, or a small billion years if you start from the moment that multi-cellular life developed.


Once you can wrap your mind around the actual difference between hundreds of millions of years and a mere few thousand, you'll slowly start to realise that this is like a REALLY long time. And how that would impact a gradual process where micro-changes are accumulated every generation. How it would inevitably lead to large changes over long periods.

 

[dad]

So. Traits vary between species. Even related species.

Hey, traits varied between Adam and Eve!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not sure what you mean by falsify the theory. There is a theory. Allow me to say if I have the basic tenet of the theory correct. I'd like to start at the beginning. That is, the idea that life started (possibly out of water) when the first cells started multiplying. Would you say that's a beginning?

Falsify = Show the theory to be false

I know you'd like to talk about anything else other than the point at hand. But let's try doing that instead.
It's rather difficult to walk you through concepts and points regarding evolution when you are constantly changing the subject to something else at every turn.

I'd love for you to think about what I actually wrote in that post and to provide a response to it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, let's put it this way: humans are considered the last (or latest) in the line of evolution, are they not? If I can follow you, let's start there. Yes or no. Are humans considered by scientists to be the last (or latest, for lack of a better term) in the line of evolution?

Nope.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The process of (human) birth is amazing. Beyond understanding by explaining it as a result of evolution from a unicell, as far as I am concerned. (Yes, doctors and scientists can examine it and intervene with medicine and so forth.) So I mean the astounding, amazing, miraculous in that sense of the process of two cells uniting and burgeoning to form skin, heart, muscles of the human body and other bodies with 'built-in' electrical currents. Yes, for me -- likely not you -- it's too amazing to have come about in the ability to form a person without the property to live having been placed there in the beginning by God. Does that mean that every living creature is a direct creation of God? Only in the sense that He gave the ability to continue itself. And there have been occasions where He does have a "direct connection."

So you believe all this about God, but you don't believe that this God could have created the process of evolution.
Why?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can't imagine that life came about by chance, without an initial Giver of life, a prime cause, an intelligence. The complicated structure of humans do not come about unless two tiny cells are united. Do I think that it is not possible for cells to turn into 'other' cells? No, I do not think that is impossible. Bacteria can move, morph, develop into another form of bacteria. Similarly, I believe that populations (animal and human) that have migrated form populations with unique characteristics, such as humans with varying characteristics unique to a particular population.

"I can't imagine this so it must be false" is an error in reasoning.
Not being able to imagine something speaks nothing at all to the probability of the thing happening/existing/occurring. Especially when you know next to nothing about the subject matter.