• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Origin of Our Species Pushed Back 100,000 Years!

Deeje

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Mandi said:
Could you say anything would ever convince you that creationism is wrong? Famously when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham on evolution and creationism, both were asked what would change their mind. Nye said compelling evidence would change his mind. Ham said nothing ever would.

Are you more like Nye, or Ham?
Click to expand...

I do not subscribe to either view. I believe in an Intelligent Designer who created all things over vast amounts of time on a very old earth.
 
K

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Deeje said:
I disagree...I think it is a very fair question. Where are all those intermediate species? Not just the humans but all living life forms? How do you tell an ape bone fragment from a human's if we share so much DNA? If we have loads of ape fossils an loads of modern human fossils why are there not loads of all the in between fossils? "They all died out" is a pretty lame explanation IMO. And who said "we are all just different branches on the same tree"?

You might be related to apes but I'm not. The gulf between humans and apes is unbridgeable. What apes do you know of that are in the process of evolving at present? What half/half creatures can you show me?

images


I don't believe that these guys ever existed....There are primitive people in the world even today, so what makes you think we all had to have such a beginning? That is an assumption, backed up by what?
Click to expand...

No, it's not because it's based on a misunderstanding of evolution. Every species is an intermediate species. Literally. Full stop. That's how speciation exists. There are even a thing called "ring species" that proves this and that isn't explainable by a creationist model.

And we can tell an ape apart from a human by looking at the DNA, similar doesn't mean exactly the same.

Also we don't have 'loads of modern human and loads of modern ape fossils but no loads of 'intermediates''. we just have some of everything. Fossilization isn't super common you know.

Also they all died is is no lamer than saying that you will get so old that eventually all your elders will be dead, leaving just you and your siblings and cousins.

By saying I might be related to apes, but you're not, supposed to be an insult? If you wanna go literal we are all apes. To say that the connection between us and other apes isn't there is like saying a house cat isn't related to a tiger, when obviously both are cats even if different in many ways.

What apes are evolving at present? Every single one. Every single species, every single generation is an intermediate between the next. There are no "half" every generation is a whole onto it's own. This too is another misconception and I really think, if you want anyone here to take you seriously you might want to have a proper understanding of what evolution actually is and what it asserts from an unbiased source, rather than rely on people trying to disprove it and only that one point of view.

Deeje said:
I do not subscribe to either view. I believe in an Intelligent Designer who created all things over vast amounts of time on a very old earth.
Click to expand...

The groups who started the ID movement proved it was just creationism in disguise. It's also pretty apparent when churches spout intelligent design as a way to get creationism back in schools as I've personally witnessed over the years (not just something I heard about online, I was actually there). Do you really expect me to believe that a Jehovah's Witness doesn't believe in Creationism?
 
Rival

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't remember this topic being in the Evolution Vs. Creationism area.
 
Last edited:
K

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Rival said:
I don't remember this topic being in the Evolution v. Creationism area.
Click to expand...

It wasn't, but then someone decided to take the time to argue all of the poe anti evolution arguments used by people who don't really understand evolution. It's not even a debate, 90% of what I say is ignored.

Actually I'm actually ticked off that they ignored my point about how scientists avoid the herd mentality with built in tools, and at the same time totally demonstrated how I described that Christians project.

But no... I wouldn't consider this a debate. A real debate takes someone actually considering my points and either refuting or accepting them, or at least addressing them and not just plain ignoring them.

@Deeje I've addressed all your points or at least almost all of them (might of missed a couple) but I've yet to see you address any of my rebuttals or any of the things I said about the actual evidence. If you want to continue to debate me you will need to do that, we might wanna do it in a new topic though, if you are up for it.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Mandi said:
It isn't faith if there is physical proof or evidence.



They also build airplanes and computers and go to the moon, invent cars and atomic bombs. All of these things were consequences of proven theories from much earlier than they were ever created. The math used to go to the moon was from Newton's work, hundreds of years prior.

Science doesn't disprove past theories so much as finds ways to improve them. It's a lot like solving a crime mystery. Maybe you were able to prove how and when someone was murdered, and thought the butler was the murderer. But then you have a breakthrough and discover it was the owner, but you don't yet know the motive. That doesn't disprove how or when the person was murdered, and without some speculation on who it might of been, and TRYING TO FIND OUT through evidence and reason, you wouldn't ever find out it was the owner. Of course yes there will still be mysteries, like why did he do it? That sort of thing, but the best part about science just like this detective work analogy is that there is a method, a process, to figuring it out>

It really seems odd to me that you expect science to just right away know 100% what the truth is from day one. That would be like trying to learn a new language and because your understanding grows over time, and you don't know all aspects of it instantly, that you don't know the language at all. I might know how to spell words and write in a language but misunderstand how to pronounce certain things or proper grammar. Correcting my mistakes doesn't mean my ability to spell or write is invalidated. Just that it was improved.
Click to expand...

Faith is based on truth. Also, you have zero proof in abiogenesis, macro-evolution or the big bang. It's all just speculation based on assumed truths.

The rest of your post is just an attempt to justify speculation and guesswork. Guess what? I'm not buying it.

If you have to improve on a theory and you know you will have to change it or improve it, then you are admitting the theory is short of being correct in the first place. That's where speculation and guesswork gets you.

Speculation and guesswork didn't cure polio. The actual remedy did cure it. I suggest you concentrate on the latter and do away with the former.
 
K

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
Faith is based on truth. Also, you have zero proof in abiogenesis, macro-evolution or the big bang. It's all just speculation based on assumed truths.

The rest of your post is just an attempt to justify speculation and guesswork. Guess what? I'm not buying it.

If you have to improve on a theory and you know you will have to change it or improve it, then you are admitting the theory is short of being correct in the first place. That's where speculation and guesswork gets you.

Speculation and guesswork didn't cure polio. The actual remedy did cure it. I suggest you concentrate on the latter and do away with the former.
Click to expand...

1. How can you know something is true by just believing in it?
2. No one even mentioned abiogenesis that is a red herring in this discussion. And even if it was pertient my earlier analogy in this very topic about a crime investigation fits perfectly. Why do you people expect science to know everything 100% right away? Oh right you just want easy answers.
3. Plenty of proof of evolution, even this topic provides some proof of it and I talked some about how strata layers prove evolution. There is no difference between "macro" and "micro" by the way, no evolutionary biologist speaks like that.
4. There is plenty of proof of the Big Bang, from elemental distribution, to specifics on the nature of space-time; CE420: Big Bang
5. What "speculation and guesswork"? Could you address actual specific things I said? A lot of your response is non-specific. For all I know you could of just ignored most of my post and said that.
6. You say if you have to improve an understanding it's not at all correct? So in my crime mystery analogy, does it make it incorrect our prior understanding of how the murder took place, even if we are mistaken about who did it until we get more evidence? Similarly, Newton's laws again still worked centuries later even if his understanding wasn't complete, it was accurate enough to get us to the moon and back.
7. Polio wasn't cured there was a vaccination, which was made through you guessed it... science. Without the scientific method, the same one that evolution follows, the same one that allows airplanes and so many other things to exist... the polio vaccine wouldn't of existed.

How can we ever create such a thing as the polio vaccine if we don't correct our understanding over time? Because the reasoning you seem to be using is that if we don't get it right the first time we might as well dismiss the entire process... and we know that the polio vaccine wasn't made on the first try...

A video demonstrating point 6 starting at 4:30:

Krauss correctly points out that Newton's equations will be true a million years from now. In his words "The biggest misconception about science is that scientific revolutions do away with everything that went before them, that's exactly wrong." Basically he's pointing out what I earlier said, that we get a fuller picture that is more fleshed out.

So all the other fossils were real, they prove humans are at least around 2 million years old, all this new fossil does is show us that there are some slightly older examples of humans. It's only a 5% shift... 100,000 out of 2 million... this is what science is about, discovering through evidence. And filling in more pieces to the puzzle. It's this thing called discoveries and solving mysteries. That's why I gave the crime investigation as an analogy, it's also about a mystery and discovery and also relies on evidence.

Would you likewise dismiss criminal investigations because their understanding matures as they gather more evidence? Wouldn't that seem silly? And yet you're basically arguing that, you just replace criminal investigation with science... and if you trust criminal investigations know that science has more rigid standards (double blind, randomized ect).

If you didn't read my previous posts fully in this topic, posts #35 and #37 I highly recommend you do, because it appears you and the other poster didn't at all based on the responses I got. That, or you guys just don't have any counter-refutations you can be bothered to present against my points meanwhile I've addressed all if not virtually all of the points brought against me!
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
DavidFirth said:
Hmm... well, if it is always going to change, it doesn't make much sense to put one's faith in it in the first place. Whatev. Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

No scientist puts Faith in knowledge... it is not a religion. Knowledge is always subject expansion and to new findings.
In this case those findings confirm the process of evolution with still better data.
The only thing to change is the likely birth place of human kind and the rate at which it evolved, neither of which have yet been established.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
I got that.

If it's just hope, is it really faith?
I hope that a real estate development I financed won't go belly up, but I've no faith in that happening.
Click to expand...

Then you're a smart guy.

Definition of faith
plural
faiths
play\ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
  1. 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty lost faith in the company's presidentb (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith

  2. 2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religionb (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust

  3. 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith
Definition of FAITH

I prefer the definition in Hebrews 11:1:

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Jose Fly said:
Your inability to respond is noted.
Click to expand...

Oh, I can talk about it all day, I just choose not to.

And your ability to assume I'm ignorant tells me all I need to know. Like that you also assume atheists know what they're talking about even though they can't prove any of the theories they discuss. Yep. You believe them because you choose to believe them; there is nothing concrete whatsoever in what they say.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
DavidFirth said:
Oh, I can talk about it all day, I just choose not to.
Click to expand...
Interesting decision, given that this is a discussion/debate forum.

And your ability to assume I'm ignorant tells me all I need to know.
Click to expand...
Your inability to back up your empty assertions tells me quite a lot.

Like that you also assume atheists know what they're talking about even though they can't prove any of the theories they discuss. Yep. You believe them because you choose to believe them; there is nothing concrete whatsoever in what they say.
Click to expand...
Atheists? Who said anything about atheists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top