Poll: How did human life come about?

[Howard]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It really doesn't matter to me if someone chooses choice 2 or choice 3, but anyone choosing choice 1 must be intentionally ignorant.

Troll much? Good job in insulting 84% of the world's populaton. :disgust:

Are you sure it's an insult?

 

[NatePo717]

We all began as little tiny monkeys. But then we got into some toxic ooze and began to talk. We then learned the art of the ninja from a rat and became mutant ninja monkeys. Eventually we evolved into what we are today so our Ninja skills could be improved.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
There are only two options. Either God created the universe, or it evolved and there is no God. Theistic evolution is un-Biblical.

:roll:

According to the Book of Genesis Chapter 1, the earth did even exist until at least the 2nd day. Tell us, exactly how long was that first "day" before the earth was even created?

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Just a quick question to the people that voted option 2, didn't you just renounced your religion?

How so?

Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.

Maybe I should have specified Catholicism. Basically, by voted this option, you've accepted Evolution, which is not what the Bible taught right? So either God is right, or the Bible is wrong.

From the proper theistic perspective, God is always right, and the Bible is just a book. Although I am not a religionist, I have the lowest intellectual respect for a person who would claim that their beliefs center around God when their beliefs are actually based on a book. At best, that would be idolatry.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Crono
For all those who preach evolution, at what point in evolutionary history did the monkey (or whatever we developed from) develop imagination?

Who says monkeys don't have some sort of rudimentary imagination now? Nothing fancy, but the sort of thing that could develop into what we have over time and many generations of natural selection. It's already been demonstrated that monkeys have the ability to understand and even communicate with humans, they're just not quite as bright as us.

Or how about the human soul? Or consciousness of the self?

Once again how are we so sure that we alone possess these things?

And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?

Morality is something we made up to cover our own asses. We follow the rules of morality (or what we best interpret them to be) with the understanding that most others will follow them to some degree. If someone completely abandons all morality then the rest of the moral population will align itself against them in the interest of protecting itself. It's not really different from the the actions of other social animals, we just have this need to assign a transcendental or "spiritual" quality to our more complicated version of the same thing.

OK, so you are basically saying that humans are smarter monkeys? We're no different from animals?

We have opposable thumbs and larger brains.

Your arguments here make no sense. Is your God so unjust that He would punish the lower animals so just for being born?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

Why don't you actually put some effort into educating yourself instead making all of these stupid posts? Your posts make it clear that you don't even understand the fundamentals behind the theory of evolution.

Instead of calling me stupid, why don't you post a constructive post and inform me? Or am I stupid to read and learn? :frown: Explain abiogenesis to me (if that's what you believe in) or any alternate hypothesis that explains how organic chemicals developed here on earth.

Well since you like to debate the subject it seems like you would have already looked into these things and prepared your counter-argument.

If you really don't know anything about abiogenesis how the hell can you hope to form a logical argument against it? Or is it that you simply believe what you believe and don't really care to inform yourself about things that run counter to that, even for the purposes of debate?

A good place to start

For actual books on the subject

Hate it or love it, everyone uses it

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono
For all those who preach evolution...

First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

...at what point in evolutionary history did the monkey (or whatever we developed from) develop imagination? Or how about the human soul? Or consciousness of the self?

I don't see any reason to believe there was ever a time when these did not exist.

And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?

What difference does that make?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

In an exquisite twist of irony, you answered your own question when you made the absolutely laughable suggestions that evolution is 1.) some kind of religion and 2.) that acceptance of evolution promotes suicide.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

Why don't you actually put some effort into educating yourself instead making all of these stupid posts? Your posts make it clear that you don't even understand the fundamentals behind the theory of evolution.

Instead of calling me stupid, why don't you post a constructive post and inform me? Or am I stupid to read and learn? :frown: Explain abiogenesis to me (if that's what you believe in) or any alternate hypothesis that explains how organic chemicals developed here on earth.

Well since you like to debate the subject it seems like you would have already looked into these things and prepared your counter-argument.

If you really don't know anything about abiogenesis how the hell can you hope to form a logical argument against it? Or is it that you simply believe what you believe and don't really care to inform yourself about things that run counter to that, even for the purposes of debate?

A good place to start

For actual books on the subject

Hate it or love it, everyone uses it

I'm asking about abiogenesis because I want to see if people actually know what they believe in when they say they believe in evolution. You can't say I'm stupid unless you know what you believe isn't. "Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter." (Wikipedia; emphasis mine).

What is the earth made up of? "Earth formed as part of the birth of the solar system: what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating cloud of dust, rocks, and gas." (Wikipedia; emphasis mine).

So to all you haters out there, because I (and many others believe) that an intelligence and power infinitely above our own created an order universe with laws and created man, rather than randomness out of nothingness or by "processes" (apparently also come from nowhere) you think I'm stupid?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Crono
*snip*

And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?

What difference does that make?

Morals don't contraindicate evolution in any case. link

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

A thread like thise could use some music:

Don Williams - I believe in You


I don't believe in superstars,
Organic food and foreign cars.
I don't believe the price of gold;
The certainty of growing old.
That right is right and left is wrong,
That north and south can't get along.
That east is east and west is west.
And being first is always best.

But I believe in love.
I believe in babies.
I believe in Mom and Dad.
And I believe in you.

Well, I don't believe that heaven waits,
For only those who congregate.
I like to think of God as love:
He's down below, He's up above.
He's watching people everywhere.
He knows who does and doesn't care.
And I'm an ordinary man,
Sometimes I wonder who I am.

But I believe in love.
I believe in music.
I believe in magic.
And I believe in you.

Well, I know with all my certainty,
What's going on with you and me,
Is a good thing.
It's true, I believe in you.

I don't believe virginity,
Is as common as it used to be.
In working days and sleeping nights,
That black is black and white is white.
That Superman and Robin Hood,
Are still alive in Hollywood.
That gasoline's in short supply,
The rising cost of getting by.

But I believe in love.
I believe in old folks.
I believe in children.
I believe in you.

But I believe in love.
I believe in babies.
I believe in Mom and Dad.
And I believe in you.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Crono
I'm asking about abiogenesis because I want to see if people actually know what they believe in when they say they believe in evolution. You can't say I'm stupid unless you know what you believe isn't. "Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter." (Wikipedia; emphasis mine).

What is the earth made up of? "Earth formed as part of the birth of the solar system: what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating cloud of dust, rocks, and gas." (Wikipedia; emphasis mine).

So to all you haters out there, because I (and many others believe) that an intelligence and power infinitely above our own created an order universe with laws and created man, rather than randomness out of nothingness or by "processes" (apparently also come from nowhere) you think I'm stupid?

First of all I haven't called you stupid once.

I can't help but take exception to how you say "...those who believe in evolution...". Believing in something suggests utter and complete conviction of the truth of that something.

It is my opinion that humans are a result of natural selection and evolution, but I realize that there is a chance of me being wrong. You recognize no such possibility of the untruth of what you believe and that alone is what causes me to disagree with you.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Originally posted by: Garth

And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?

What difference does that make?

It makes every difference in the world. If morality comes from the individual, and morality is relative, then what is "right in my own eyes" will differ from what is right in your own eyes. And there are many people out there who think that and murder, rape, torture, stealing, lying are ok. That means that all the guys who are beating their wives right now and getting away with it, they won't be judged in the end, because, according to you, there is no God. That means that politician who is funneling thousands of dollars from taxpayers into his own pocket (and he might never get caught, and if he does, he'll get off easy) unseen will live it up in his fancy mansion. There isn't always justice in life, but there certainly is justice when God brings before Him those who are unrepentant in sin, and that, my friend, is the real truth. There is a God, and He is loving, and He is just.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Bull freaking spit. Many advances in biology simply would not have occurred if not for evolutionary theory (you can call it "macro" if you wish, I make no such distinction). I speak from personal experience, having applied the theory, done the experiments and made the observations myself.

 

[Muse]

I can't vote for any of those because none of them seems sane to me. The reference to God, really, seems to imply a cognizant thinking willful being apart from everything else. That's just plain lunacy. Life on earth is the result of a long evolutionary process. Cool it with the theological considerations. Man created God in his own image, at least foolish men did.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth

And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?

What difference does that make?

It makes every difference in the world. If morality comes from the individual, and morality is relative, then what is "right in my own eyes" will differ from what is right in your own eyes. And there are many people out there who think that and murder, rape, torture, stealing, lying are ok. That means that all the guys who are beating their wives right now and getting away with it, they won't be judged in the end, because, according to you, there is no God. That means that politician who is funneling thousands of dollars from taxpayers into his own pocket (and he might never get caught, and if he does, he'll get off easy) unseen will live it up in his fancy mansion. There isn't always justice in life, but there certainly is justice when God brings before Him those who are unrepentant in sin, and that, my friend, is the real truth. There is a God, and He is loving, and He is just.

What?

So your sense of morality is predicated on the comfort you get by knowing that everyone will get their just punishment in the end? Morality is a human concept and it should be defined and enforced by humans. If spouse abuse, dirty politicians, and immorals of all sorts bother you then get out there and expose them. If they get away with it then its because the people they were screwing weren't vigilant enough to catch them.

Yes people shouldn't beat their wives and politicians shouldn't steal money, but they can and they do. Why?

Because they can. The only checks and balances are the ones that we enforce.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Crono
No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Educate yourself

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Good lord I don't think I've seen a higher concentration of PRATTs in more than a year!

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*?

Richard Dawkins has his own issues as an atheist, and I will not deny his atheistic evangelism. That doesn't mean he "preaches" evolution. He doesn't have to.

Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated.

Nothing is "directly observable." All observations are to some degree indirect.

Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a

The nested hierarchy is quite pleasantly illustrated here:

http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1

I don't have a problem with microevolution.

There is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." The latter is simply a larger quantity of the former. What you've claimed is akin to saying "I believe in walking, and I believe you can walk across the room, but I don't believe you can walk across town." Once you've conceded the fundamental process, the debate is over.

I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Scientific facts are not decided upon for their usefulness. You can't say proposition X is false because it hasn't led to the cure for cancer.

That being said, your claim is false. Scientific research conducted on mice, for example, is useful precisely because of our knowledge of the human evolutionary relationship to mice.

Originally posted by: Garth

And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?

What difference does that make?

It makes every difference in the world. If morality comes from the individual, and morality is relative, then what is "right in my own eyes" will differ from what is right in your own eyes. And there are many people out there who think that and murder, rape, torture, stealing, lying are ok. That means that all the guys who are beating their wives right now and getting away with it, they won't be judged in the end, because, according to you, there is no God. That means that politician who is funneling thousands of dollars from taxpayers into his own pocket (and he might never get caught, and if he does, he'll get off easy) unseen will live it up in his fancy mansion. There isn't always justice in life, but there certainly is justice when God brings before Him those who are unrepentant in sin, and that, my friend, is the real truth. There is a God, and He is loving, and He is just.

You didn't answer my question. None of the above -- even if it were true -- has any bearing on the truth of evolution. You can't reject facts because you do not like what you think they entail for your philosophy. If I thought that the theory of gravity suggested that I should go around pushing people off of tall building so that they could follow their natural geodesics, that doesn't mean that the theory of gravity must be false. Is that seriously how you think?

Evolution has literally nothing to do with morality. Period. It is a scientific theory. It describes what is. It does not describe what ought to be.

Seriously, you need to educate yourself from a source other than Kent Hovind.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Bull freaking spit. Many advances in biology simply would not have occurred if not for evolutionary theory (you can call it "macro" if you wish, I make no such distinction). I speak from personal experience, having applied the theory, done the experiments and made the observations myself.

Care to elaborate or give examples that show how macroevolution has been practically useful? If you don't believe there is a distinction between macro- and micro-, then the issue should be simply a matter of scale. So tell me, how has the "knowledge" that primates millions of years ago evolved into man been of use?

 

[Strk]

I really wish people would differentiate people of faith and people of faith who disavow exhaustedly proven scientific theories.

 

[meltdown75]

How did human life come about?

God took a sh1t.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Bull freaking spit. Many advances in biology simply would not have occurred if not for evolutionary theory (you can call it "macro" if you wish, I make no such distinction). I speak from personal experience, having applied the theory, done the experiments and made the observations myself.

Care to elaborate or give examples that show how macroevolution has been practically useful? If you don't believe there is a distinction between macro- and micro-, then the issue should be simply a matter of scale. So tell me, how has the "knowledge" that primates millions of years ago evolved into man been of use?

He already has. You're using the common and yet disingenuous tactic of moving the goalposts.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Garth

That being said, your claim is false. Scientific research conducted on mice, for example, is useful precisely because of our knowledge of the human evolutionary relationship to mice.

False. It is because of genetic similarity to mice. Similarity does not mean that we evolved from mice, mice evolved from us, or that we shared a common ancestor, either. Nor for monkeys. The whole theory of evolution is based on the faulty premise that similarity = relation. Which is poor science as well as poor logic. Homological "evidence" as well as fossil "evidence" (and what other "evidence" you want to throw in there) are all based on that logic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth

That being said, your claim is false. Scientific research conducted on mice, for example, is useful precisely because of our knowledge of the human evolutionary relationship to mice.

False. It is because of genetic similarity to mice.

There is no difference between genetic similarity and evolutonary relatedness.

Similarity does not mean that we evolved from mice, mice evolved from us, or that we shared a common ancestor, either. Nor for monkeys.

I did not claim any of the above.

EDIT: I responded to fast. In fact it does mean that we shared a common ancestor. We know this because we know how genes propagate through time in species. Where a sequence appears in two divergent genomes we can deduce the existence of a common ancestor in the past of the two compared organisms.

The whole theory of evolution is based on the faulty premise that similarity = relation. Which is poor science as well as poor logic. Homological "evidence" as well as fossil "evidence" (and what other "evidence" you want to throw in there) are all based on that logic.

Forgive me as I chuckle while you posture as some kind of expert on evolutionary theory.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

re-calculate the theory of evolution if the product of abiogenesis was a fully formed complex organism such as a rabbit, or a dog...
as opposed to if it was a simple cell, or single celled bacterium.

Ok, we're going to need to untangle a few things here.

First, a single-celled organism isn't more or less "fully formed" of "complex" than a mammal. Surely, one is multicellular where one is not, but really isn't a significant difference with regard to the mechanisms of evolution, which are known.

And the more common ancestors availabe at the period of abiogenesis would seem to negate the need for natural selection to be the methodology for speciation.

Why would that be? There would still be a finitude of resources and therefore competition for them.

the current version of natural selection only is accurate if there was exactly 1 single celled simple common ancestor organism. So unless you can identify that those specific starting conditions could have or did actually exist, the theory doesnt do much.

I'm sorry, but that is basically nonsense. Natural selection operates wherever there are reproducing biological organisms. Period. That's all.

incorrect. single celled organisms are far less complex. single celled organisms are generic. milti cellular organisms have specialized cells (tissues -> organs -> systems) a single cell is the complete living organism, capable of surviving on its own. A liver cell is dependent on other cells to help it sustain itself. Its called specialization.

I am not talking about the micro concept of natural selection... I am talking about the macro concept of natural selection. Nothing that you have said offers and evidence to the opinion that natural selection is/has been the sole exclusive explanation for how life got from abiogenesis (whatever its final products were) to the life we have today. If abiogenesis as you said it produced 2 (M+F) of every species as they currently exist (as the common ancestors) ... Then natural selection would have very little to do with getting from the origin to what we have today.
In other words... the more work done during abiogenesis, the less has been done by natural selection.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Bull freaking spit. Many advances in biology simply would not have occurred if not for evolutionary theory (you can call it "macro" if you wish, I make no such distinction). I speak from personal experience, having applied the theory, done the experiments and made the observations myself.

Care to elaborate or give examples that show how macroevolution has been practically useful? If you don't believe there is a distinction between macro- and micro-, then the issue should be simply a matter of scale. So tell me, how has the "knowledge" that primates millions of years ago evolved into man been of use?

Well how has the "knowledge" that a God creates us in his image in our present form been of use? Or the "knowledge" that evolution did in fact occur, but was guided by a God.

By your scale the two should be equal right? Endeavoring to find the truth of the matter has some intrinsic value doesn't it? The practical usefulness of a scientific theory is irrelevant. Many discoveries made by scientists don't seem to have any practical use and fade into obscurity. Many more become integral parts of our daily lives. Just because the discovery isn't equivalent to alternating current or nuclear fusion as far as practical application doesn't invalidate it.