Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:55 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:55 pm to FooManChoo
Holy shite, this thread makes me sad.
0
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:57 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Should I have said "molecules-to-man" or "chemicals-to-cows" so that you don't get hung up on it?
Another clear indication that you are woefully unknowing of what we're discussing right now. Note: The hyperbole is noted and not the problem with what you just said.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:23 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Let me guess, William Lane Craig told you different?
Never read anything by him. Good effort.
You're quoting peoples' arguments you don't even understand. This is fun fodder to play around with on the internets, but you don't deserve to be taken a bit seriously.
And there are plenty of brilliant and respected Biblical scholars who have differing theories on dating (F.F Bruce and J. A.T. Robinson). At some point, you can continue your tilt against the windmills on this issue or you can admit you overstepped the limits of the historical critical method especially with regards to certainty. To be clear, I expect no such thing. You seem decently hardheaded.
I'll leave you with a quote from my Greek professor from Mizzou, Eugene Lane. "We subject the Bible to all sorts of literary hypotheses which we do not apply to any other ancient texts." (He hasn't contributed to any apologetic websites of which I am aware, nor was he a conservative.). Now run and find another wiki that validates your chosen theory and continue to convince yourself (if no one else) that you have any sort of grasp on the subject matter.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:25 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:I used those phrases because I know they are buzzwords for those like Ken Ham.
Another clear indication that you are woefully unknowing of what we're discussing right now. Note: The hyperbole is noted and not the problem with what you just said.
Again, they are word-pictures used to illustrate a concept, but perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you are having an issue with based on what you are quoting.
Simply saying I don't understand what we are talking about isn't helpful.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:32 pm to the808bass
quote:
And there are plenty of brilliant and respected Biblical scholars who have differing theories on dating
They are minorities in regards to Matthew. Your entire argument has been lifted from LINK
Again, there are plenty (most) of respected Biblical Scholars who side with my own point of view. In regards to certainty: The levels definitely fluctuate.
quote:
"We subject the Bible to all sorts of literary hypotheses which we do not apply to any other ancient texts."
Richard Carrier touched on this and said that it was quite the opposite: It's not held up to the same scrutiny and doesn't hold the same amount of evidence as other ancient texts do. (Like, for instance, Plato's Republic.)
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Your hypothetical started with two fish of the same species changing into fish of other species over time. I have no problem with one species changing into another, since two different species are extremely similar except in how they look or other relatively-small changes which make them somewhat dissimilar.
I have a problem with the notion that a mammal of one family or genus changes into another mammal from a different class or genus over time. There is a wide variety of animal kinds within the mammal class.
You are aware that fish are a much more diverse group of animals than mammals are right? Out of the 7 classes of vertebra, fish occupy 3 of the classes.
quote:
Again, if one species changes into another species, that is something we can observe over a pretty short amount of time.
Yet again proving you don't know crap about how evolution works. How is this observable over a short period of time? Yes, we can observe animals evolving, like certain birds being put on different islands, but no way in our lifetimes or really the past 20 generations' lifetimes could we witness the birth of a new species that couldn't mate with it's previous species or another species with similar origin that went on a different evolutionary path. Donkeys and horses can still breed, but they're still of different species and produce almost entirely infertile children.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:20 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
And FooManChoo, if you really want evolution explained to you in real Layman's Terms, watch this. It boils evolution down to its simplest concepts:
Cosmos
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:40 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
And FooManChoo, if you really want evolution explained to you in real Layman's Terms, watch this. It boils evolution down to its simplest concepts:
He isn't here to learn. He's here to teach. It's a smarmy form of proselytizing that the religious right is currently using.
The technique is to seemingly agree with you by repeating back what you've said, but with a subtle (not so subtle anymore, however) religious angle. The Mormons have employed this tactic for generations.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
But the fact of the matter is that we haven't done that experiment and we haven't observed "monkey-to-man"
Just curious, do you take every story in the bible as literal truth? As in the flood story of Noah's ark?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:46 pm to RTOTA
quote:
But the fact of the matter is that we haven't done that experiment and we haven't observed "monkey-to-man"
Just curious, do you take every story in the bible as literal truth? As in the flood story of Noah's ark?
Yeah he said earlier in the thread that he did, and I hadn't seen that whole "we haven't observed Monkey-to-Man" bit, that's pretty funny.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:48 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
But the fact of the matter is that we haven't done that experiment and we haven't observed "monkey-to-man"
Taxonomic rank Name Common name Millions of
years ago
Domain Eukaryota Cells with a nucleus 2,100
Kingdom Animalia Animals 590
Phylum Chordata Vertebrates and closely related invertebrates 530
Subphylum Vertebrata Vertebrates 505
Superclass Tetrapoda Tetrapods 395
Unranked Amniota Amniotes, tetrapods that are fully terrestrially-adapted 340
Class Mammalia Mammals 220
Subclass Theriiformes Mammals that birth live young (i.e. non-egg-laying)
Infraclass Eutheria Placental mammals (i.e. non-marsupials) 125
Magnorder Boreoeutheria Supraprimates, bats, whales, most hoofed mammals, and most carnivorous mammals
Superorder Euarchontoglires Supraprimates (primates, rodents, rabbits, tree shrews, and colugos) 100
Grandorder Euarchonta Primates, colugos and tree shrews
Mirorder Primatomorpha Primates and colugos 79.6
Order Primates Primates 75
Suborder Haplorrhini "Dry-nosed" (literally, "simple-nosed") primates (apes, monkeys, and tarsiers) 40
Infraorder Simiiformes "Higher" primates (or Simians) (apes, old-world monkeys, and new-world monkeys)
Parvorder Catarrhini "Downward-nosed" primates (apes and old-world monkeys) 30
Superfamily Hominoidea Apes 28
Family Hominidae Great apes (Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) 15
Subfamily Homininae Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas 8
Tribe Hominini Genera Homo and Australopithecus 5.8
Subtribe Hominina Contains only the Genus Homo 2.5
Genus Homo Humans 2.5
Species (Archaic) Homo sapiens Modern humans 0.5
Subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens Fully anatomically modern humans
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:48 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Yes, I'm aware. The original hypothetical was discussing on species of fish that changed into another species that couldn't breed with the original species over time.
You are aware that fish are a much more diverse group of animals than mammals are right? Out of the 7 classes of vertebra, fish occupy 3 of the classes.
quote:Ross, on page 18, was telling me that speciation is observable and even provided a link to ring species to prove it. Speciation is certainly something I'm on board with, and it is perfectly compatible with my Biblical worldview. Speciation through the addition of new genetic information that adds complexity is something I'm not on board with. That's certainly a more important aspect of evolutionary theory than whether or not breeding takes place, IMO.
Yet again proving you don't know crap about how evolution works. How is this observable over a short period of time? Yes, we can observe animals evolving, like certain birds being put on different islands, but no way in our lifetimes or really the past 20 generations' lifetimes could we witness the birth of a new species that couldn't mate with it's previous species or another species with similar origin that went on a different evolutionary path. Donkeys and horses can still breed, but they're still of different species and produce almost entirely infertile children.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:50 pm to OMLandshark
quote:I don't want or need evolution explained to me in real Layman's Terms. I understand the concept perfectly fine, but I'll watch the link later tonight when I have 45 mins or so available. Thank you.
And FooManChoo, if you really want evolution explained to you in real Layman's Terms, watch this. It boils evolution down to its simplest concepts:
Cosmos
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:52 pm to Kentucker
quote:I'm not here to learn or teach anything. I'm here to give my opinion for my own recreation. If I do learn something, that's just a bonus.
He isn't here to learn. He's here to teach. It's a smarmy form of proselytizing that the religious right is currently using.
The technique is to seemingly agree with you by repeating back what you've said, but with a subtle (not so subtle anymore, however) religious angle. The Mormons have employed this tactic for generations.
I'm not employing any overt tactic here. I'm just having a discussion and responding with what I believe about a particular topic. I've never argued with a Mormon before so I'm unfamiliar with how they go about it.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:53 pm to FooManChoo
Appearance of Homo. Homo habilis is thought to be the ancestor of the lankier and more sophisticated Homo ergaster. Lived side by side with Homo erectus until at least 1.44 Ma, making it highly unlikely that Homo erectus directly evolved out of Homo habilis. First stone tools, beginning of the Lower Paleolithic.
Homo erectus evolves in Africa. Homo erectus would bear a striking resemblance to modern humans, but had a brain about 74 percent of the size of modern man. Its forehead is less sloping than that of Homo habilis and the teeth are smaller. Other hominid designations such as Homo georgicus, Homo ergaster, Homo pekinensis, Homo heidelbergensis are often put under the umbrella species name of Homo erectus.[21] Starting with Homo georgicus found in what is now the Republic of Georgia dated at 1.8 Ma, the pelvis and backbone grew more human-like and gave H. georgicus the ability to cover very long distances in order to follow herds of other animals. This is the oldest fossil of a hominid found outside of Africa. Control of fire by early humans is achieved 1.5 Ma by Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster reaches a height of around 1.9 metres (6.2 ft). Evolution of dark skin, which is linked to the loss of body hair in human ancestors, is complete by 1.2 Ma. Homo pekinensis first appears in Asia around 700 Ka but according to the theory of a recent African origin of modern humans, they could not be human ancestors, but rather, were just a cousin offshoot species from Homo ergaster. Homo heidelbergensis was a very large hominid that had a more advanced complement of cutting tools and may have hunted big game such as horses.
Homo antecessor may be a common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.[22][23] At present estimate, humans have approximately 20,000–25,000 genes and share 99% of their DNA with the now extinct Neanderthal [24] and 95-99% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relative, the chimpanzees.[25][26] The human variant of the FOXP2 gene (linked to the control of speech) has been found to be identical in Neanderthals.[27] It can therefore be deduced that Homo antecessor would also have had the human FOXP2 gene.
Three 1.5 m (5 ft) tall Homo heidelbergensis left footprints in powdery volcanic ash solidified in Italy. Homo heidelbergensis may be a common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.[28] It is morphologically very similar to Homo erectus but Homo heidelbergensis had a larger brain-case, about 93% the size of that of Homo sapiens. The holotype of the species was tall, 1.8 m (6 ft) and more muscular than modern humans. Beginning of the Middle Paleolithic.
Y-chromosomal Adam lived in Africa approximately 338,000 years ago, according to a recent study.[29] He is the most recent common ancestor from whom all male human Y chromosomes are descended.
Omo1, Omo2 (Ethiopia, Omo river) are the earliest fossil evidence for anatomically modern Homo sapiens.[30]
Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu) in Ethiopia, Awash River, Herto village, practice mortuary rituals and butcher hippos. Potential earliest evidence of anatomical and behavioral modernity consistent with the continuity hypothesis including use of red ochre and fishing.[31]
Mitochondrial Eve is a woman who lived in East Africa. She is the most recent female ancestor common to all mitochondrial lineages in humans alive today. Note that there is no evidence of any characteristic or genetic drift that significantly differentiated her from the contemporary social group she lived with at the time. Her ancestors were Homo sapiens as were her contemporaries.
Appearance of mitochondrial haplogroup L2.
Behavioral modernity according to the "great leap forward" theory.[32]
Appearance of mitochondrial haplogroups M and N, which participate in the migration out of Africa. Homo sapiens that leave Africa in this wave start interbreeding with the Neanderthals they encounter.[33][34]
Migration to South Asia. M168 mutation (carried by all non-African males). Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. mt-haplogroups U, K.
Migration to Australia[35] and Europe (Cro-Magnon).
The independent Neanderthal lineage dies out. Y-Haplogroup R2; mt-haplogroups J, X.
Beginning of the Mesolithic / Holocene. Y-Haplogroup R1a; mt-haplogroups V, T. Evolution of light skin in Europeans (SLC24A5).[citation needed] Homo floresiensis dies out, leaving Homo sapiens as the only living species of the genus Homo.
-- Monkeys to man, Foo.
Homo erectus evolves in Africa. Homo erectus would bear a striking resemblance to modern humans, but had a brain about 74 percent of the size of modern man. Its forehead is less sloping than that of Homo habilis and the teeth are smaller. Other hominid designations such as Homo georgicus, Homo ergaster, Homo pekinensis, Homo heidelbergensis are often put under the umbrella species name of Homo erectus.[21] Starting with Homo georgicus found in what is now the Republic of Georgia dated at 1.8 Ma, the pelvis and backbone grew more human-like and gave H. georgicus the ability to cover very long distances in order to follow herds of other animals. This is the oldest fossil of a hominid found outside of Africa. Control of fire by early humans is achieved 1.5 Ma by Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster reaches a height of around 1.9 metres (6.2 ft). Evolution of dark skin, which is linked to the loss of body hair in human ancestors, is complete by 1.2 Ma. Homo pekinensis first appears in Asia around 700 Ka but according to the theory of a recent African origin of modern humans, they could not be human ancestors, but rather, were just a cousin offshoot species from Homo ergaster. Homo heidelbergensis was a very large hominid that had a more advanced complement of cutting tools and may have hunted big game such as horses.
Homo antecessor may be a common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.[22][23] At present estimate, humans have approximately 20,000–25,000 genes and share 99% of their DNA with the now extinct Neanderthal [24] and 95-99% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relative, the chimpanzees.[25][26] The human variant of the FOXP2 gene (linked to the control of speech) has been found to be identical in Neanderthals.[27] It can therefore be deduced that Homo antecessor would also have had the human FOXP2 gene.
Three 1.5 m (5 ft) tall Homo heidelbergensis left footprints in powdery volcanic ash solidified in Italy. Homo heidelbergensis may be a common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.[28] It is morphologically very similar to Homo erectus but Homo heidelbergensis had a larger brain-case, about 93% the size of that of Homo sapiens. The holotype of the species was tall, 1.8 m (6 ft) and more muscular than modern humans. Beginning of the Middle Paleolithic.
Y-chromosomal Adam lived in Africa approximately 338,000 years ago, according to a recent study.[29] He is the most recent common ancestor from whom all male human Y chromosomes are descended.
Omo1, Omo2 (Ethiopia, Omo river) are the earliest fossil evidence for anatomically modern Homo sapiens.[30]
Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu) in Ethiopia, Awash River, Herto village, practice mortuary rituals and butcher hippos. Potential earliest evidence of anatomical and behavioral modernity consistent with the continuity hypothesis including use of red ochre and fishing.[31]
Mitochondrial Eve is a woman who lived in East Africa. She is the most recent female ancestor common to all mitochondrial lineages in humans alive today. Note that there is no evidence of any characteristic or genetic drift that significantly differentiated her from the contemporary social group she lived with at the time. Her ancestors were Homo sapiens as were her contemporaries.
Appearance of mitochondrial haplogroup L2.
Behavioral modernity according to the "great leap forward" theory.[32]
Appearance of mitochondrial haplogroups M and N, which participate in the migration out of Africa. Homo sapiens that leave Africa in this wave start interbreeding with the Neanderthals they encounter.[33][34]
Migration to South Asia. M168 mutation (carried by all non-African males). Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. mt-haplogroups U, K.
Migration to Australia[35] and Europe (Cro-Magnon).
The independent Neanderthal lineage dies out. Y-Haplogroup R2; mt-haplogroups J, X.
Beginning of the Mesolithic / Holocene. Y-Haplogroup R1a; mt-haplogroups V, T. Evolution of light skin in Europeans (SLC24A5).[citation needed] Homo floresiensis dies out, leaving Homo sapiens as the only living species of the genus Homo.
-- Monkeys to man, Foo.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:54 pm to MontyFranklyn
Evolution is Gods design. The universe as we know it is a piece of God.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:54 pm to RTOTA
quote:Depends what you mean by "literal" truth.
Just curious, do you take every story in the bible as literal truth? As in the flood story of Noah's ark?
I believe the Bible is written in a way that involves many literary devices and the context of each word, sentence, verse, chapter, and book help us to understand which literary device is being used. I have no reason (from the text) to believe the flood is a historical narrative rather than poetry or anything else.
You'll have to provide specific examples if you want me to answer whether or not I take them "literally".
I do believe that whatever the Bible says, it is meant to provide truth.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:55 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't want or need evolution explained to me in real Layman's Terms. I understand the concept perfectly fine, but I'll watch the link later tonight when I have 45 mins or so available. Thank you.
I assure you that you do not understand that. You have been saying things so incredibly misinformed that it is making my head spin. You have completely surrounded yourself with people who think like you and never expose yourself to any other line of thinking. You each agree with each other, so you can not reason from another's POV. Please take some time this evening to watch this and open your mind. You are well spoken and written, so obviously not a complete idiot, but you really have to see what hogwash you are preaching.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 4/9/14 at 5:59 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:Very nice story. Thank you for sharing
Monkeys to man, Foo.
But I knew the narrative of how humans presumably evolved.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 6:04 pm to OMLandshark
quote:I will most assuredly watch the link and I'll do my best to do it tonight as I stated. I'm not afraid to have my beliefs challenged and I've been paying attention to everything you and others have said here. Just because I don't come to the same conclusions doesn't mean I live in a bubble and shield myself from differing views, beliefs, and opinions.
I assure you that you do not understand that. You have been saying things so incredibly misinformed that it is making my head spin. You have completely surrounded yourself with people who think like you and never expose yourself to any other line of thinking. You each agree with each other, so you can not reason from another's POV. Please take some time this evening to watch this and open your mind. You are well spoken and written, so obviously not a complete idiot, but you really have to see what hogwash you are preaching.
But I've been hearing this stuff for years. I used to do this very thing (arguing/debating evolution et al) all the time in from about 18 until 24 or 25. I'm not much older now, but I've learned the futility of it, so I don't participate very often. This has been one of very few exceptions over the past several years for me, and it is always very challenging to try to continue a discussion with 4 or 5 different people at once, but I (mostly) enjoy the challenge.
Page 23 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News