More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[Dan From Smithville]

I am betting that he gives you the same explanation that I gave to you.

I do not know that Christ wasn't speaking metaphorically or poetically. He could have been. And I agree, that based on the general knowledge of people at the time, dumping a vast amount of technical information and concepts on them that they were ill-equipped to understand would have been meaningless and useless.

I do find it interesting that a person claims to know the Bible and Christianity so well that they can challenge other Christians over the validity of their Christianity, yet cannot come up with any valid argument against science other than some false garbage gleaned off the internet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not know that Christ wasn't speaking metaphorically or poetically. He could have been. And I agree, that based on the general knowledge of people at the time, dumping a vast amount of technical information and concepts on them that they were ill-equipped to understand would have been meaningless and useless.

I do find it interesting that a person claims to know the Bible and Christianity so well that they can challenge other Christians over the validity of their Christianity, yet cannot come up with any valid argument against science other than some false garbage gleaned off the internet.

I always say that he could have been. I do not take the exact opposite position of those that claim he had to be speaking literally. Though I will point out that if Jesus was God and knew everything as some of those posters like to claim, then he could not have literally believed that. Jesus was supposed to be "fully man" that means that he would likely have made the same errors that others did of his time. And if he was "fully God" at that time it makes his "sacrifice" a sham since he would have known that it was temporary and mere human pain would be nothing to a god. Fundamentalists tend to argue themselves into an indefensible position by demanding that Jesus is God.

 

[sayak83]

By the way, they weren't equipped? How? Was Darwin equipped? He concluded that humans came as a result of morphing gorillas, or shall I say, some "unknown commof ancestor," which I guess he figured must have been that way because they looked like chimps, gorillas, humans, and bonobos.

The common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas was a generic ape that lived either in east africa or in southern europe. One good candidate is Nakalipithecus, an ape who lived 9.8 million years ago in Kenya. Another very similar looking ape Samburupithecus which was also found quote close by. The fact is not that we do not have a candidate for common ancestor. Rather there are quite a lot of similar looking fossils, each close kin of the others, and each of which are good enough candidates to be common ancestors. One of them is, but bones alone are insufficient to definitely say this one is the common ancestor and that one is not. The situation is, as I said, you cannot distinguish between your great great grandfather and your great great granduncle by bones alone. But one of them will be your paternal ancestor, certainly.
Nakalipithecus - Wikipedia
I will also make certain points.
1) The difference between species boils down to difference in DNA letters
2) We know how much difference in DNA letters exist between chimpanzees and humans
3) We know at what rates the DNA letters change by mutation from one generation to the next. The mutation rate.
4) We know speciation happens. We have seen it in insects, fishes, birds etc. multiple times now. The mechanisms of speciation are well know and well evidenced. So is the mechanism of mutation and natural selection that drives evolutionary alteration.
5) We know that 8-9 million years is more than enough time to account for all DNA changes we see between humans and chimpanzees
6) We see from the structure of how the DNA letters are arranged with additions, deletions and insertions...that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees came from a common initial source. This is very similar to how we trace ancestry of language. We can see from the words, grammar etc. that American English emerged from early modern British English and so on.
7) We have several candidate fossil apes with the kind of features we expect of this common ancestor.
8) We have hundreds of later transitional fossil hominids that chart out the evolution of modern humans from this early common ancestor. (Sahelanthropus, Ororin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus- gracile and robust, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, Humans etc. etc.) Hundreds of species. Thousands of specimens. Spanning over these 8 million years. More are discovered every year. Evolutionary trajectory is non-linear and tree like with many branches and sub-branches...as predicted by Darwin.

So as far as science is considered, the fact of evolution of humans from ancestral stock of apes is as well established as the fact the earth is spherical. To believe or not is upto you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am betting that he gives you the same explanation that I gave to you.

could be -- (what is your explanation, by the way?) But you claim to be an atheist. So that eliminates any type of creation by a thinking, intelligent higher power for you, doesn't it?

 

[YoursTrue]

So there are things in the Bible that can be interpreted in different ways and even quotes might not mean what they say at face value? Things there that we might not fully understand and could mean even things we might have come not to agree with using lesser understanding?

I did mean to. When you take the path you have decided to take on here, do you expect the person or persons you have targeted to lay there and take it?

Well, I would hope to get a reasonably honest answer. And for someone to not get really offended. But anyway -- as I said -- it's been interesting. And I thank you, and sorry if I have offended you.

 

[YoursTrue]

The common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas was a generic ape that lived either in east africa or in southern europe. One good candidate is Nakalipithecus, an ape who lived 9.8 million years ago in Kenya. Another very similar looking ape Samburupithecus which was also found quote close by. The fact is not that we do not have a candidate for common ancestor. Rather there are quite a lot of similar looking fossils, each close kin of the others, and each of which are good enough candidates to be common ancestors. One of them is, but bones alone are insufficient to definitely say this one is the common ancestor and that one is not. The situation is, as I said, you cannot distinguish between your great great grandfather and your great great granduncle by bones alone. But one of them will be your paternal ancestor, certainly.
Nakalipithecus - Wikipedia
I will also make certain points.
1) The difference between species boils down to difference in DNA letters
2) We know how much difference in DNA letters exist between chimpanzees and humans
3) We know at what rates the DNA letters change by mutation from one generation to the next. The mutation rate.
4) We know speciation happens. We have seen it in insects, fishes, birds etc. multiple times now. The mechanisms of speciation are well know and well evidenced. So is the mechanism of mutation and natural selection that drives evolutionary alteration.
5) We know that 8-9 million years is more than enough time to account for all DNA changes we see between humans and chimpanzees
6) We see from the structure of how the DNA letters are arranged with additions, deletions and insertions...that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees came from a common initial source. This is very similar to how we trace ancestry of language. We can see from the words, grammar etc. that American English emerged from early modern British English and so on.
7) We have several candidate fossil apes with the kind of features we expect of this common ancestor.
8) We have hundreds of later transitional fossil hominids that chart out the evolution of modern humans from this early common ancestor. (Sahelanthropus, Ororin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus- gracile and robust, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, Humans etc. etc.) Hundreds of species. Thousands of specimens. Spanning over these 8 million years. More are discovered every year. Evolutionary trajectory is non-linear and tree like with many branches and sub-branches...as predicted by Darwin.

So as far as science is considered, the fact of evolution of humans from ancestral stock of apes is as well established as the fact the earth is spherical. To believe or not is upto you.

I'd like to take this step by step. So I'll start at the beginning of your post and won't go into every point you make. You said, "One good candidate is Nakalipithecus, an ape who lived 9.8 million years ago in Kenya." Let's start there. How do you know that a good candidate might be an ape who lived 9.8 million years in Kenya.

 

[Subduction Zone]

could be -- (what is your explanation, by the way?) But you claim to be an atheist. So that eliminates any type of creation by a thinking, intelligent higher power for you, doesn't it?

I explained to you how a Christian could interpret what Jesus said and still not call God a liar.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained to you how a Christian could interpret what Jesus said and still not call God a liar.

OK, I understand. Anyone can say virtually anything, or reason on a subject but could be he did not believe the logic he was using. For instance, a person who doesn't believe there is a God can still explain how a person that does believe in God might reason. That is interesting, because the underhanded questioning Satan the Devil used when he approached persons. Such as when he approached Eve: "Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Subtle. Genesis chapter 3.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained to you how a Christian could interpret what Jesus said and still not call God a liar.

Or perhaps claim salvation by Jesus and say that he was wrong about creation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I understand. Anyone can say virtually anything, or reason on a subject but could be he did not believe the logic he was using. For instance, a person who doesn't believe there is a God can still explain how a person that does believe in God might reason. That is interesting, because the underhanded questioning Satan the Devil used when he approached persons. Such as when he approached Eve: "Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Subtle. Genesis chapter 3.

You seem to have forgotten that most atheists used to be Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or perhaps claim salvation by Jesus and say that he was wrong about creation?

Most Christians do not think that God is a liar. That is why most Christians know that the Adam and Eve story is myth. As is Noah's Ark and even the Moses story.

I see that you have not been able to present any quotes by Jesus in context. And you need to remember that context is very important in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained to you how a Christian could interpret what Jesus said and still not call God a liar.

Would you also say that a person claiming to be a Christian could say Jesus didn't raise the dead? Or maybe did so poetically?

 

[YoursTrue]

You seem to have forgotten that most atheists used to be Christians.

Really? And given the state of religion, I too declared I did not believe in God until I realized my life was at an awful point. And I finally turned to the one I wasn't sure was there and He answered me. I won't go into detail now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you also say that a person claiming to be a Christian could say Jesus didn't raise the dead? Or maybe did so poetically?

There is a huge range in what Christians believe out there. It is a wide world. There are Christians that can be Christians without magic Jesus. Your version of Christianity is far from the only one.

Tell me, what do you think of Flat Earth Christians? There are many (of that small group) that are that way because of what the Bible says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? And given the state of religion, I too declared I did not believe in God until I realized my life was at an awful point. And I finally turned to the one I wasn't sure was there and He answered me. I won't go into detail now.

You do not seem to understand.

Before they "saw the light" many atheists were Christians. In fact in general atheists understand Christianity better than the average Christian does. They did not drop their faith lightly. So just because someone is an atheist does not mean that they did not believe in Jesus in the past. They could understand why taking the Bible too literally is an error.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most Christians do not think that God is a liar. That is why most Christians know that the Adam and Eve story is myth. As is Noah's Ark and even the Moses story.

I see that you have not been able to present any quotes by Jesus in context. And you need to remember that context is very important in the Bible.

How about Jesus raising the dead or being resurrected? Untrue? Mythical? I understand about the confusion in religion. That is why God alone is the one to set things straight in a person's mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about Jesus raising the dead or being resurrected? Untrue? Mythical? I understand about the confusion in religion. That is why God alone is the one to set things straight in a person's mind.

Almost certainly untrue. Don't forget man wrote the Gospels. There are clear errors in the Gospels. One has to be reasonable when interpreting them.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a huge range in what Christians believe out there. It is a wide world. There are Christians that can be Christians without magic Jesus. Your version of Christianity is far from the only one.

Tell me, what do you think of Flat Earth Christians? There are many (of that small group) that are that way because of what the Bible says.

There is no question in my mind that the earth is like a ball of sorts. Again, I am not a scientist but the rotation of the moon and the earth tells me that, aside from traveling. And views from space.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I would hope to get a reasonably honest answer. And for someone to not get really offended. But anyway -- as I said -- it's been interesting. And I thank you, and sorry if I have offended you.

Why would someone get offended when someone else is claiming that the offended person holds a false belief. That's just normal, sensitive, honest stuff there. What was I thinking?

 

[We Never Know]

You do not seem to understand.

Before they "saw the light" many atheists were Christians. In fact in general atheists understand Christianity better than the average Christian does. They did not drop their faith lightly. So just because someone is an atheist does not mean that they did not believe in Jesus in the past. They could understand why taking the Bible too literally is an error.

And a chihuahua understands what its like to be a wolf more than a wolf does lol

An atheist, even a former christian atheists doesn't understand christianity any better than a christian does. You can keep telling yourself that all you want. Its a sad and weak explanation and defense.