The Science of Human Evolution

[Faithofchristian]

Well, most of them were priests of a particular religious sect in a specific location on Earth. They came to exist as all of us do: they were born.



Except that its statements about these are contradicted by the universe. Of the two, I trust the universe more than the texts of the Bible.



But according to *your* story, it didn't come from nothing. it came from God. And don't try to tell me what I find incomprehensible.



So you avoid the central question. When there is a conflict between the Bible and the universe, which do you choose to believe?

You just keep proving yourself as not knowing what the Bible says or Confirm's

Those Scribes were not of different religions. That just shows how much you don't know.

 

[Audie]

You just keep proving yourself as not knowing what the Bible says or Confirm's

Those Scribes were not of different religions. That just shows how much you don't know.

Are you aware of how much you do not know about science, or, for that matter, proper English usage? Fair is fair, and all!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You just keep proving yourself as not knowing what the Bible says or Confirm's

Those Scribes were not of different religions. That just shows how much you don't know.

I think we should try to drag this thread back to the topic of evolution.

What do you feel you understand about the theory of evolution? From a scientific perspective, I mean.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think we should try to drag this thread back to the topic of evolution.

What do you feel you understand about the theory of evolution? From a scientific perspective, I mean.

The evolution of natural selection, is the process by which organism change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow organism to better adapt to it's environment will help it survive and have more offspring. All life on earth is connected and related to each other.

Let's take the origin of whales.
In 1859 Charles Darwin speculated about natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale, As a hypothetical example. Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open.

Notice the at the top ( Speculated )

To Speculate means -- form a theory or conjuncture about a subject without firm evidence.

As Darwin stated "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced, as monstrous as a whale" he speculated.

Again we have ( speculated )

The idea didn't go over very well with the public, Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received the swimming bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.

Scientist now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: instead of looking at bears and whales, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamus.

Oh I see, since the public didn't buy into the bear and whale story, let's see if they are stupid enough to buy into the cow and hippopotamus story.

Well guess what, The scientist were right.

 

[sayak83]

The evolution of natural selection, is the process by which organism change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow organism to better adapt to it's environment will help it survive and have more offspring. All life on earth is connected and related to each other.

Let's take the origin of whales.
In 1859 Charles Darwin speculated about natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale, As a hypothetical example. Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open.

Notice the at the top ( Speculated )

To Speculate means -- form a theory or conjuncture about a subject without firm evidence.

As Darwin stated "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced, as monstrous as a whale" he speculated.

Again we have ( speculated )

The idea didn't go over very well with the public, Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received the swimming bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.

Scientist now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: instead of looking at bears and whales, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamus.

Oh I see, since the public didn't buy into the bear and whale story, let's see if they are stupid enough to buy into the cow and hippopotamus story.

Well guess what, The scientist were right.

Do you want the 20-30 intermediate fossils between the ancestral land mammals and whales ? I could start a separate thread if you wish. As Jesus said "Ask and it will be given to you".

But for human evolution, are you now satisfied that there are scores of transitional fossil skeletons found by scientists that clearly and unambiguously document the evolution of ancestral apes to modern man?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The evolution of natural selection, is the process by which organism change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow organism to better adapt to it's environment will help it survive and have more offspring. All life on earth is connected and related to each other.

Let's take the origin of whales.
In 1859 Charles Darwin speculated about natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale, As a hypothetical example. Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open.

Notice the at the top ( Speculated )

To Speculate means -- form a theory or conjuncture about a subject without firm evidence.

As Darwin stated "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced, as monstrous as a whale" he speculated.

Again we have ( speculated )

The idea didn't go over very well with the public, Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received the swimming bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.

Scientist now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: instead of looking at bears and whales, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamus.

Oh I see, since the public didn't buy into the bear and whale story, let's see if they are stupid enough to buy into the cow and hippopotamus story.

Well guess what, The scientist were right.

So you believe that science hasn't advanced in almost 200 years?

Also, copying a pasting from a Live Science page doesn't indicate that you actually understand evolution.

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

 

[Faithofchristian]

So you believe that science hasn't advanced in almost 200 years?

Also, copying a pasting from a Live Science page doesn't indicate that you actually understand evolution.

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Rather than go to all the time of going thru and putting things on here, so I put what they are saying, in the which I understand what the Evolution to mean.

But all though I showed how the scientist took what Charles Darwin had of bears and whales and changed it to cows and hippopotamus, which is just as silly.
But it also showed Charles Darwin speculated on his theory of evolution.

Which speculate means--- forming of a theory or conjuncture without firm evidence.

This is the reason why I posted theory of evolution by Charles Darwin and the Scientist of evolution to show when they speculate on the theory of evolution.

Unto which Speculate means --- forming of a theory or conjuncture without firm Evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Rather than go to all the time of going thru and putting things on here, so I put what they are saying, in the which I understand what the Evolution to mean.

How much can you understand if you can't even put it into your own words?

But all though I showed how the scientist took what Charles Darwin had, and change it, but still was just as silly as what Charles Darwin had.

Except that we now actually have the evidence to support it, and all of the facts indicate that it is true. Your argument is little more than an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[Faithofchristian]

How much can you understand if you can't even put it into your own words?


Except that we now actually have the evidence to support it, and all of the facts indicate that it is true. Your argument is little more than an argument from personal incredulity.

Hey don't complain to me, I'm not the one that's caught in speculation, ask those Scientist why are speculating
Unto which Speculate means--- the forming of a theory or conjuncture without firm evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hey don't complain to me, I'm not the one that's caught in speculation, ask those Scientist why are speculating

So scientists aren't allowed to speculate? And you do realize that they have found evidence that shows whales evolved from earlier land mammals, right? It's not longer just "speculation".

 

[Darkstorn]

Hey don't complain to me, I'm not the one that's caught in speculation, ask those Scientist why are speculating

Are you specifically trying to show to everyone that you don't actually read/understand the posts you are replying to?

Also, you are the one caught in speculation. And particularly, being wrong.

 

[Darkstorn]

Uh, what?

/E: I was not actually replying to you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Uh, what?

/E: I was not actually replying to you.

Oops, sorry! Got ahead of myself and thought you were faithofchristian replying to me.

Deleted!

 

[Polymath257]

Hey don't complain to me, I'm not the one that's caught in speculation, ask those Scientist why are speculating
Unto which Speculate means--- the forming of a theory or conjuncture without firm evidence.

Science works by first speculating. Then it looks for ways to verify or negate those speculations. Then it actually goes out into the world to see what happens. Then it modifies any speculations to conform with what was seen.

So, yes, Darwin speculated that bears were similar to the original species. That line of speculation didn't hold up to the evidence. So whales did not evolve from the ursines (bears). But when more fossil evidence appeared, it became clear that whales *did* evolve from the ungulates. That is where the evidence is. Whales evolved from the ungulates.

The issue isn't speculation. The issue is whether evidence shows up that either supports or negates that speculation and whether that speculation is something that *can* be challenged by the evidence. The difference between science and religion is that science requires its speculations to be testable and actively goes out to try to show them wrong. Those speculations that survive the evidence and those attempts are held, tentatively, until new evidence is found. We eliminate the falsehoods and keep whatever is left over as more likely to be true.

 

[Darkstorn]

Talking about speculation, here's a post he addressed to you a few pages ago:

Hey look, the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, But the subject is not about whether dinosaurs lived Million or billion of years ago.
The subject is about was man there at that time of the dinosaurs ?

And my answer was to this is Yes Man was there with the dinosaurs.

But the question is, as to which man was there, was it the Celestial man or the Terrestrial man ?

I'd like to see what kind of mental gymnastics he has to go through with to not consider that speculation.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Science works by first speculating. Then it looks for ways to verify or negate those speculations. Then it actually goes out into the world to see what happens. Then it modifies any speculations to conform with what was seen.

So, yes, Darwin speculated that bears were similar to the original species. That line of speculation didn't hold up to the evidence. So whales did not evolve from the ursines (bears). But when more fossil evidence appeared, it became clear that whales *did* evolve from the ungulates. That is where the evidence is. Whales evolved from the ungulates.

The issue isn't speculation. The issue is whether evidence shows up that either supports or negates that speculation and whether that speculation is something that *can* be challenged by the evidence. The difference between science and religion is that science requires its speculations to be testable and actively goes out to try to show them wrong. Those speculations that survive the evidence and those attempts are held, tentatively, until new evidence is found. We eliminate the falsehoods and keep whatever is left over as more likely to be true.

I'm glad that you brought it up. About Scientist and Religion.

First you would need a Scientist who believes in evolution, to be supportive of evolution.

You can not take a person who has no knowledge or understanding about evolution, to give the right answers about evolution.

Let's say, to take a Christian and have them go into evolution and they come out denouncing evolution. How many people do you think would support them on their findings, even here in RF how many people would support them on their findings.

So in like manner, When I hear people say, that people have found the bible as being false.
The first question that comes to my mind is who was those people, I'm sure they were not Christian.

You can not take a person who has no knowledge or understanding about the bible to give the right answers about the bible. It would be very doubtful that those who believe in the Bible,would take their word at all.

Just like you wouldn't take a person who has no knowledge or understanding about the Science of Evolution to give the right answers about evolution. And it would be very doubtful that those who believe in evolution would take their word at all.

So what we have here is, people who have no knowledge or understanding about Science of Evolution, and people who have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible.
Trying to explain the workings of Science of Evolution.
Trying to explain the workings of the Bible.

I am not trying to be critical or criticize anyone.
Just telling it the way it is.

 

[Darkstorn]

So what we have here is, people who have no knowledge or understanding about Science of Evolution, and people who have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible.
Trying to explain the workings of Science of Evolution.
Trying to explain the workings of the Bible.

That's a pretty convoluted way of saying that everyone's wrong. But i've got news for you: I understand both the science of evolution AND the Bible. And i'm willing to make the bet that most of your opponents understand both as well.

Just because you don't seem to understand either doesn't mean we have that same disadvantage. You are just trying to reduce the validity of everyone's arguments with wishful thinking.

Just telling it the way it is.

No, you are quite literally telling it the way you wish it was.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That's a pretty convoluted way of saying that everyone's wrong. But i've got news for you: I understand both the science of evolution AND the Bible. And i'm willing to make the bet that most of your opponents understand both as well.

Just because you don't seem to understand either doesn't mean we have that same disadvantage. You are just trying to reduce the validity of everyone's arguments with wishful thinking.



No, you are quite literally telling it the way you wish it was.

You said that you have understanding about the bible,
But if I give you something from the bible and you criticized it, does not mean it's not there, it means your understanding of the Bible is limited.

So if I make mention of the Celestial man and the Terrestrial man, doesn't mean they are not in the Bible, it just means your understanding of the Bible is limited. Of not knowing who they actually are.

And you can find them being spoken of in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm glad that you brought it up. About Scientist and Religion.

First you would need a Scientist who believes in evolution, to be supportive of evolution.

And a scientists who does not believe in evolution is encouraged to attempt to find evidence contradicting it. Of course, that evidence will be evaluated by *all* the relevant scientists, not just those agreeing or disagreeing with evolution.

You can not take a person who has no knowledge or understanding about evolution, to give the right answers about evolution.

Let's say, to take a Christian and have them go into evolution and they come out denouncing evolution. How many people do you think would support them on their findings, even here in RF how many people would support them on their findings.

On the contrary, a great many Christians have studied evolution and found it to be correct. Those who object universally misunderstand what evolution actually says and the evidence for it.

So in like manner, When I hear people say, that people have found the bible as being false.
The first question that comes to my mind is who was those people, I'm sure they were not Christian.

You can not take a person who has no knowledge or understanding about the bible to give the right answers about the bible. It would be very doubtful that those who believe in the Bible,would take their word at all.

On the contrary, you can look at the obvious meaning of the words in the Bible and see if they correspond to reality. If they do not, that is sufficient reason to reject the Bible as an authority.

One aspect of science is that those who don't initially believe can look at the evidence and the conclusions and become convinced that the science is correct. Alternatively, if they think some piece of evidence has been disregarded, they can bring it up in discussion and, maybe, be instrumental in a new scientific revolution.

Just like you wouldn't take a person who has no knowledge or understanding about the Science of Evolution to give the right answers about evolution. And it would be very doubtful that those who believe in evolution would take their word at all.

But they can ask questions and, hopefully, learn from the answers to those questions. The clear meaning of the scientific literature and an understanding of the terminology is all that is required. Not prior belief.

So what we have here is, people who have no knowledge or understanding about Science of Evolution, and people who have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible.
Trying to explain the workings of Science of Evolution.
Trying to explain the workings of the Bible.

I am not trying to be critical or criticize anyone.
Just telling it the way it is.

Most people here that criticize the Bible have read it cover to cover and have also studied the history behind why that Bible contains the books it does. No, they do not consider the Bible to be an authoritative source, but the reason they don't is because they have actually read it and compared it to reality.

 

[Darkstorn]

You said that you have understanding about the bible,

I do. In fact, everything points out to my understanding being superior compared to yours.

But if I give you something from the bible and you criticized it, does not mean it's not there, it means your understanding of the Bible is limited.

I haven't done that. Me criticizing you is not criticizing the Bible.

So if I make mention of the Celestial man and the Terrestrial man, doesn't mean they are not in the Bible, it just means your understanding of the Bible is limited. Of not knowing who they actually are.

You made specific mention of men walking with dinosaurs. None of that is in the Bible.

Not to mention none of the posts I have quoted here have anything from the Bible: It's only your words.

Also, just because I disagree with you doesn't automatically mean I don't understand the Bible. By the very same logic it could also mean that you don't understand the Bible.

To be honest i'm surprised you can understand anything. It seems to be very selective in your case. Half the time you don't even understand the text you quote.

And you can find them being spoken of in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Even if you could find something so specific, this is you trying to remove the context of your own argument. Remember: Your actual context was men living at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Problem: You weren't talking about celestial men at first. You said that man-like apes lived with the dinosaurs. To salvage the point in spite of an obvious mistake like that you changed the entire story.

You are actually trying to change the subject constantly. Now your point is peoples' understanding of science versus peoples' understanding of the Bible.

And you have indeed shown your lack of understanding.