Human's evolution in the most simple way . (salvation, hell, church)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I didn't grossly misrepresent your evolutionary theory/myth. I was merely re-stating what your own evolutionary scientists were stating where humans came from They started out with the single celled amoeba to the dual and so on. Then they finally got to the fish, then to land animals then to chimps then to apes then to humans. I can't help it you don't believe your own scientists. LOL!

By the way, it was your evolutionist scientists in that show that said that when the grasses came on the earth the chimpanzees could not see above the tall grasses and so they began to walk on their hind legs and from this they evolved. I'm not making this stuff up. They said it, not me. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with them if I were you. Not a shred of evidence to support their claims but yet they said this stuff as if it were scientific FACT. Then they made the jump to apes and from apes to humans. They know no shame.

I'm just going to make one observation and then leave you to your strawman misrepresentations.

That very pretty illustration of amoeba to ape approximates evolution, but it is the popular misconception of a direct straight line which Henry Gee called a 'fairy tale' and was what was referred to by the evolutionists who said 'everything we thought we knew about evolution is wrong'.

True, Darwin probably did envisage something more like that picture when he formulated the theory and in fact it is quite feasible - unless adherence to an instant everything foofed out of mud with a magic wand is closing the mind to the much more reasonable gradual development theory.

It would be fine if the evidence indicated a straight line ascent like that but it is (as one might expect with a natural process going one way and then another) a lot more complicated. So the theory has had to be improved and refind in accordance with the evidence and the original too - simple, popular single line story is indeed a fantasy.

Creationists including our pal Eusebius have put a lot of effort into misrepresenting those quotes to suggest that evolutionists themselves admit that evolution does not make sense.

Even that pretty drawing and the ones of primates evolving in mid- step does make sense and does agree with the evidence but is just too simple. We do not need to take it up with the evolutionists because we already know what they say and have explained what the answer is. But Eusebius is not listening. He is simply rehearsing his own Faith - based prejudices.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I'm just going to make one observation and then leave you to your strawman misrepresentations.

That very pretty illustration of amoeba to ape approximates evolution, but it is the popular misconception of a direct straight line which Henry Gee called a 'fairy tale' and was what was referred to by the evolutionists who said 'everything we thought we knew about evolution is wrong'.

True, Darwin probably did envisage something more like that picture when he formulated the theory and in fact it is quite feasible - unless adherence to an instant everything foofed out of mud with a magic wand is closing the mind to the much more reasonable gradual development theory.

It would be fine if the evidence indicated a straight line ascent like that but it is (as one might expect with a natural process going one way and then another) a lot more complicated. So the theory has had to be improved and refind in accordance with the evidence and the original too - simple, popular single line story is indeed a fantasy.

Creationists including our pal Eusebius have put a lot of effort into misrepresenting those quotes to suggest that evolutionists themselves admit that evolution does not make sense.

Even that pretty drawing and the ones of primates evolving in mid- step does make sense and does agree with the evidence but is just too simple. We do not need to take it up with the evolutionists because we already know what they say and have explained what the answer is. But Eusebius is not listening. He is simply rehearsing his own Faith - based prejudices.

Oh come on Airquipa, it is not really about me. This was a VERY CURRENT show made by YOUR evolutionists. I was merely relating to this thread what they said. Whether it is too simplistic or not is not my problem. If you have a problem with what they said the problem does not lie in my "Faith -based prejudices" but lies with your own evolutionist scientists who made that show. I recorded it by the way so I know exactly what they said. It is obvious evolutionists do not agree among themselves over the "faith - based evolution" they have.



I listen just fine thank you. The fact is, yes I said FACT, is that no evolutionist has undeniable PROOF of evolution. It is all made up. It is an invention of improper thinking. I can't prove creation and you can't prove evolution. No matter how fancy smanchy you or your so-called scientists state it, it is UNPROVEN. Unproven AREQUIPA. UNPROVEN.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I'm just going to make one observation and then leave you to your strawman misrepresentations.

That very pretty illustration of amoeba to ape approximates evolution, but it is the popular misconception of a direct straight line which Henry Gee called a 'fairy tale' and was what was referred to by the evolutionists who said 'everything we thought we knew about evolution is wrong'.

True, Darwin probably did envisage something more like that picture when he formulated the theory and in fact it is quite feasible - unless adherence to an instant everything foofed out of mud with a magic wand is closing the mind to the much more reasonable gradual development theory.

It would be fine if the evidence indicated a straight line ascent like that but it is (as one might expect with a natural process going one way and then another) a lot more complicated. So the theory has had to be improved and refind in accordance with the evidence and the original too - simple, popular single line story is indeed a fantasy.

Creationists including our pal Eusebius have put a lot of effort into misrepresenting those quotes to suggest that evolutionists themselves admit that evolution does not make sense.

Even that pretty drawing and the ones of primates evolving in mid- step does make sense and does agree with the evidence but is just too simple. We do not need to take it up with the evolutionists because we already know what they say and have explained what the answer is. But Eusebius is not listening. He is simply rehearsing his own Faith - based prejudices.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I listen just fine thank you. The fact is, yes I said FACT, is that no evolutionist has undeniable PROOF of evolution. It is all made up. It is an invention of improper thinking. I can't prove creation and you can't prove evolution. No matter how fancy smanchy you or your so-called scientists state it, it is UNPROVEN. Unproven AREQUIPA. UNPROVEN.

This is the problem that plagues this and the various Noah's Ark threads etc., Arequipa. There is no there there. The fog of unreasoning credulity is impenetrable. Why this incessant argumentation with ancient ignorance, Arequipa?

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The fact is, yes I said FACT, is that no evolutionist has undeniable PROOF of evolution. It is all made up.

That's just funny. The fact is that the evidence for evolution is so airtight and irrefutable that no reputable scientist even bothers to "prove" it anymore. In the scientific world, that debate was already over 150 years ago.

Nowadays, scientists have moved on to figuring out the details of how evolution actually works, at the genetic level. That's the cutting-edge stuff that's all the rage right now.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is the problem that plagues this and the various Noah's Ark threads etc., Arequipa. There is no there there. The fog of unreasoning credulity is impenetrable. Why this incessant argumentation with ancient ignorance, Arequipa?

As you know, I will consider all sorts of claims because, after all, who knows what might turn out to be true? It is also entertaining and stimulating and I learn a lot. And it often provides good material for showing people of all beliefs that the well - crafted evangelical packages really don't stand up well under scrutiny.

I have been spending some time with Squall - Lionheart for these reasons and I think it has been time well - spent - whether he goes with the evidence or with faith (which I am sure it's really all about ).

However, with Eusebius, we have had long threads on evolution and the flood and the result is that he has almost nothing but misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the former and wild claims and denial in respect of the latter.

Here he repeats the same thing all over again and indeed, despite the huge goading to explain or correct for the benefit of others (since he plainly isn't listening) I have pretty much done with debating with him on those subjects, at least.

Might be open to a debate on Exodus, though.....

[squall-lionheart]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Of course you do and that's encouraging. I also have had some doubts about evolution - notably how on earth the feather could have evolved.

In fact, that has been stunningly proven by the originally contested links between dinosaur physiology and birds (and it was right that it should be contested) and then the feathered dinosaur fossils coming out of China. And I read an evolutionists had dismissed that as a fairy tale some time ago.
The fact is, my good pal, that there is going to be debate and some unanswered questions and some assumptions that do need to be corrected, as in the Haeckel embryos - what's wrong with the Galapagos finches, by the way? - though the mistakes generally seem to be on the creationist side these days as in the T- Rex soft tissue (which was actually fossilized mineral) the Hadrosaur mummy (which was again stone fossil) and the Chinese 'fake' fossil which was actually two genuine fossils and their fitting together to get a better price was discovered by the fossil - experts.

That's what makes ​​me wonder!!
How could fake fossils fool scientists for so many years ?!!
Was it not possible to descover that fake from the first examination ?
What makes us be sure that this is not happening now or will happen in the future ?

The Archaeopteryx fossil was denounced as a fake (actually there are eight, I believe) but I think we can now accept that they are genuine. These fake fossil accusations are still the sort of creationist trash that is not worthy of you. If you have some doubts about any aspect of the evidence that is or has been presented, share them with us. So far they have not looked anything like as damning as you had presented them.

You mean there wasn't any fake fossil ?
About creationist trash ...
Don't you agree with me that at the end what really matter is the truth itself not whom saying it ?

Now, while all questions and unknowns and doubts are to be welcomed, what is more welcome is that you at least appear to recognize that the theory is sound and fits with and is supported by the evidence, and the objections made, even where correct (many are not) do not really do more than adjust the details.

I thought I made myself clear when I said :

Originally Posted by squall-lionheart
I do not deny the theory of evolution ,in fact it does describes and explains a very important aspects of diversity of modern species ,history and nature of life on Earth in the most simple & wonderful way

(1) Evolution is an eminently feasible mechanism for the development of life - even if God did make the first cell or it was brought here on a meteorite or by visiting alien scientists.

Agree ..with some reservations !!!

(2) It is supported by all the evidence, ALL of it. And creationist objections at best are mere details (like the quibbles about the pepper moth and embryology, though Haeckel did go too far) and at worst are misrepresentations like Miller -Urey or downright poor science like Irreducible complexity or information cannot be added. The rest is just nonsense of the whirlwind in a junkyard or the Giraffe could not evolve type.
(3) Evolution does not disprove God, so it isn't a choice between evolution or God. There are a lot of evolutionary theists; but it does undermine the literal reading of the Genesis Creation story. But how many people take that literally? Who wants to be in the camp of those talking about day and night before there was a sun? About talking snakes and all species crammed onto the ark?

I said earlier I want to keep Islam out of it but please allow me to say this :
Nothing in Islam conflict with the age of the earth as modern science confirmed it .
We believe that God created Adam in a beautiful way but were there actually human beings who looks like Apes at a certain stage ?
Could be ...
We have nothing in Islam to conflict it .

Believe in your god, if you must, but take pity on your minds and your intellectual integrity and go with the evidence, not with the ludicrous myths of Genesis.

You mintion God here so I have to reply upon it :
I do not agree with you here ...
Islam is not a religion of Priesthood ...
We are commanded to work & use our brain ...
Yes I certainly go with evidence & I don't find any of them disprove God as you said before .
In fact many of them proves the existence of a creator .
There is a thing that I find much bigger than evidence alone it called logic .
When we find a footprint on the ground then it tells us there was someone here even if we didn't see him .
It called inference ...
As for me I see in a lot of scientific laws the evidence of a an intelligent power .
Fore example :
If all life began as a one cell then there must be someone who has giving it that apelty because biogenesis said " Life does not arise from non-living materials" .
Here I used a scientific definition to prove the existence of God logically .
I have a simple query if you allow me :
Mutation is usualy a random chemical change in DNA ...etc
In other words changes can not be controlled because it is random .
Do you agree here before I continue ?
Please give me a simple answer ...
The question is to everyone not just AREQUIPA ...
P.s : I may not be able to reply today as I feel dezzy & tired a little bit

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by squall-lionheart

That's what makes ​​me wonder!!
How could fake fossils fool scientists for so many years ?!!
Was it not possible to descover that fake from the first examination ?
What makes us be sure that this is not happening now or will happen in the future ?

You mean there wasn't any fake fossil ?

Really, No. Piltdown man and nebraska man were early on and were rather layman claims which were corrected by the palaeontoligists reasonably quickly. The only recent one was the China fossil again picked up pretty quickly by the experts. The scientific method is designed to try to ensure that we don't get fooled and so far as I know, there are no established serious fakes that were imposed and certainly not for very long.

P.s It's worth reading up about fossil fakes. They are spread about a bit but the only serious one was Piltdown announced in 1912 while Heidelberg and Pekin man were being discovered. The geological questions about the find were raised in 1925 and the hoax in fact exposed in 1952. It was a stern warning that it took so long to be admitted. Nebraska man was a bit of a non - event really and the other fossils claimed as fakes by creationists or evolution - doubters really are not.

About creationist trash ...

Don't you agree with me that at the end what really matter is the truth itself not whom saying it ?

I thought I made myself clear when I said :

Yes I agree, but I thought by now I had shown that it was the creationists who had to falsify their evidence in order to make their case. Your comments about doubting those who had to fake their evidence should be directed at them

Agree ..with some reservations !!!

I said earlier I want to keep Islam out of it but please allow me to say this :
Nothing in Islam conflict with the age of the earth as modern science confirmed it .
We believe that God created Adam in a beautiful way but were there actually human beings who looks like Apes at a certain stage ?
Could be ...
We have nothing in Islam to conflict it .

You mintion God here so I have to reply upon it :
I do not agree with you here ...
Islam is not a religion of Priesthood ...
We are commanded to work & use our breans ...
Yes I certainly go with evidence & I don't find any of them disprove God as you said before .
In fact many of them proves the existence of a creator .
There is a thing that I find much bigger than evidence alone it called logic .
When we find a footprint on the ground then it tells us there was someone here even if we didn't see him.

Well, I agree that we could could keep religion out of this. As I have said, evolution does not disprove a god, though we do have to question Holy Books which make claims that contradict validated evolutionary fact - sorry, but that's the way it is.

As for me I see in a lot of scientific laws the evidence of a an intelligent power .

Fore example :
If all life began as a one cell then there must be someone who has giving it that apelty because biogenesis said " Life does not arise from non-living materials" .

That's why evolution does not deny God -only Creationist theory. A god could have made life at the outset. I don't believe it but I have no way of proving that the way I DO have evidence to prove that evolution is the best theory of the development of life, even if a God did start it. I can only say (there was thread in this - I might give a link) that there is a feasible mechanism proposed for abiogenesis (life from non - life) and some lab work to show some stages (amino acids and self - replicating RNA) but that's pretty much it. I'm not going to say there's hard evidence the way there is for evolution.

Here I used a scientific definition to prove the existence of God logically .

Another example :
Mutation is usualy a random chemical change in DNA ...etc
In other words changes can not be controlled because it is random .
Do you agree here before I continue ?
Please give me a simple answer ...

In the natural way of things, yes. It is random in that (as I said before) evolution is not aiming mutations at solving particular problems. It is that millions of mutations are going on and those which give no advantage or which are fatal disappear or are reabsorbed into the general gene -pool. Those which DO give a 1% advantage (as Dawkins put it) will be taken on by the specimen strain as the one with the advantage. This is happening for known reasons so it is not random in the sense of occurring without any reasons, but is random in the sense of not being intelligently planned by anyone...which suits atheism very nicely.

The question is to everyone not just AREQUIPA ...

I am a layman who has had to do their best to get to grips with a detailed subject. I apologize for any errors or misunderstandings and welcome correction from experts.

P.s : I may not be able to reply today as I feel dezzy & tired a little bit

I don't blame you after all this and I truly appreciate the way you have actually been dealing what is obviously a case - study which is asking you to make some serious reappraisals. I wouldn't blame you if you couldn't bring yourself to do that. I only ask that you recognize that a good case can be made for evolution and that almost ALL the Creationists objections are either overdrawn, misrepresented or are -as I said - garbage.

[squall-lionheart]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Really, No. Piltdown man and nebraska man were early on and were rather layman claims which were corrected by the palaeontoligists reasonably quickly. The only recent one was the China fossil again picked up pretty quickly by the experts. The scientific method is designed to try to ensure that we don't get fooled and so far as I know, there are no established serious fakes that were imposed and certainly not for very long.

P.s It's worth reading up about fossil fakes. They are spread about a bit but the only serious one was Piltdown announced in 1912 while Heidelberg and Pekin man were being discovered. The geological questions about the find were raised in 1925 and the hoax in fact exposed in 1952. It was a stern warning that it took so long to be admitted. Nebraska man was a bit of a non - event really and the other fossils claimed as fakes by creationists or evolution - doubters really are not.

Yes I agree, but I thought by now I had shown that it was the creationists who had to falsify their evidence in order to make their case. Your comments about doubting those who had to fake their evidence should be directed at them

Well, I agree that we could could keep religion out of this. As I have said, evolution does not disprove a god, though we do have to question Holy Books which make claims that contradict validated evolutionary fact - sorry, but that's the way it is.

That's why evolution does not deny God -only Creationist theory. A god could have made life at the outset. I don't believe it but I have no way of proving that the way I DO have evidence to prove that evolution is the best theory of the development of life, even if a God did start it. I can only say (there was thread in this - I might give a link) that there is a feasible mechanism proposed for abiogenesis (life from non - life) and some lab work to show some stages (amino acids and self - replicating RNA) but that's pretty much it. I'm not going to say there's hard evidence the way there is for evolution.
In the natural way of things, yes. It is random in that (as I said before) evolution is not aiming mutations at solving particular problems. It is that millions of mutations are going on and those which give no advantage or which are fatal disappear or are reabsorbed into the general gene -pool. Those which DO give a 1% advantage (as Dawkins put it) will be taken on by the specimen strain as the one with the advantage. This is happening for known reasons so it is not random in the sense of occurring without any reasons, but is random in the sense of not being intelligently planned by anyone...which suits atheism very nicely.

I am a layman who has had to do their best to get to grips with a detailed subject. I apologize for any errors or misunderstandings and welcome correction from experts.

I don't blame you after all this and I truly appreciate the way you have actually been dealing what is obviously a case - study which is asking you to make some serious reappraisals. I wouldn't blame you if you couldn't bring yourself to do that. I only ask that you recognize that a good case can be made for evolution and that almost ALL the Creationists objections are either overdrawn, misrepresented or are -as I said - garbage.

In the last 3 days I have read a lot from 5 different books(Biology ,Mathematics,History,Philosophy) ...
All of those books are not required at the college ..
I just like to read ..,Yes I am a nerd
But lately I begin to feel tired and exhausted both physically and mentally ..!!!
My Professor advised me not to read from different disciplines (different kind of knowledge ) on the same time & that I should make my reading more organize ( this weak Biology & the next weak Philosophy ...etc) .
He said it may be confusing & harmful to my brain !!!
I don't know if that's true or not !!!
Any way , I will reply on your post tomorrow ...

[baystater]

Originally Posted by squall-lionheart

In the last 3 days I have read a lot from 5 different books(Biology ,Mathematics,History,Philosophy) ...
All of those books are not required at the college ..
I just like to read ..,Yes I am a nerd
But lately I begin to feel tired and exhausted both physically and mentally ..!!!
My Professor advised me not to read from different disciplines (different kind of knowledge ) on the same time & that I should make my reading more organize ( this weak Biology & the next weak Philosophy ...etc) .
He said it may be confusing & harmful to my brain !!!
I don't know if that's true or not !!!
Any way , I will reply on your post tomorrow ...

four questions:

1. About how old are you?
2. How much sleep are you getting? (This is important to answer.)
3. Are you a morning person or evening person? And when are your classes?
4. How much time to you give yourself to deeply contemplate/internalize each subject you study?

[squall-lionheart]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Really, No. Piltdown man and nebraska man were early on and were rather layman claims which were corrected by the palaeontoligists reasonably quickly. The only recent one was the China fossil again picked up pretty quickly by the experts. The scientific method is designed to try to ensure that we don't get fooled and so far as I know, there are no established serious fakes that were imposed and certainly not for very long.

I hope so because Piltdown man & Haeckel's Embryos took so many years before they were exposed .
What makes me worry is that such counterfeit has already happened in the past .

P.s It's worth reading up about fossil fakes. They are spread about a bit but the only serious one was Piltdown announced in 1912 while Heidelberg and Pekin man were being discovered. The geological questions about the find were raised in 1925 and the hoax in fact exposed in 1952. It was a stern warning that it took so long to be admitted. Nebraska man was a bit of a non - event really and the other fossils claimed as fakes by creationists or evolution - doubters really are not.

So after all there were fake fossils and they did took years to exposed .

Yes I agree, but I thought by now I had shown that it was the creationists who had to falsify their evidence in order to make their case. Your comments about doubting those who had to fake their evidence should be directed at them

Yes, alot of their books & sites contain false evidence & that is totally unacceptable , But to be fair not all of them .

Well, I agree that we could could keep religion out of this. As I have said, evolution does not disprove a god, though we do have to question Holy Books which make claims that contradict validated evolutionary fact - sorry, but that's the way it is.

Please do not tell me about Holy Books because we believe that they are all distorted except the Quran & it is not a scientific book even if it contains some scientific evidence .

That's why evolution does not deny God -only Creationist theory. A god could have made life at the outset. I don't believe it but I have no way of proving that the way I DO have evidence to prove that evolution is the best theory of the development of life, even if a God did start it. I can only say (there was thread in this - I might give a link) that there is a feasible mechanism proposed for abiogenesis (life from non - life) and some lab work to show some stages (amino acids and self - replicating RNA) but that's pretty much it. I'm not going to say there's hard evidence the way there is for evolution.

As for me I think it is more logical that god made life & I also believe that evolution is the mechanism development of life .
There is a difference between the origin & the mechanism .
I believe that random contrary with order & frequency contrary with coincidence .
It is impossible for that huge system & that delicate and complex diversity of species to be created through random accidents .
Maybe you don't see it that way ... maybe you have another point of view ... but I certainly do believe that .
It make more sense to me & it is undoubtedly more close to logic .

In the natural way of things, yes. It is random in that (as I said before) evolution is not aiming mutations at solving particular problems. It is that millions of mutations are going on and those which give no advantage or which are fatal disappear or are reabsorbed into the general gene -pool. Those which DO give a 1% advantage (as Dawkins put it) will be taken on by the specimen strain as the one with the advantage. This is happening for known reasons so it is not random in the sense of occurring without any reasons, but is random in the sense of not being intelligently planned by anyone...which suits atheism very nicely.

I see ...
So you mean it is random in appearing & it is not random in the sense of not being intelligently planned by anyone( that is of course incloding the organism it self ) !!!
So when our common ancestor needed longer stronger arms can he/she plan it or choose what kind of advantage does he/she need from mutation because from what I know it is random ?
You could get something that you don't need or you could get something you need or even nothing at all !!
Isn't that the definition of the word random ?
Another thing ...
Since 1870 when the scientific community had accepted evolution as a fact did we find an example of genetic mutation of a human which can be seen to increase the information in the geno & change the body shape naturally (out side of lab experiments) ?
Enough with the questions now .