Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 8/12/2005 10:17:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 10:34:34 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
OK, here are the ground rules.

1. Do NOT post here if you are going to insult someone or be offensive.

2. By posting on this topic you agree to Rule #1 and give permission for your account to be locked if you violate Rule #1.

3. This is NOT a religious topic. Some have suggested that EVERYTHING regarding belief of any kind is a "religious" issue but I can't say I subscribe to that idea. I don't think my NON BELIEF in Zeus or Apollo qualifies as religion.

OK, first things first.

It is NOT my intention to disprove the existence of God or the validity of ANY relgion. Personally I don't see how Evolution does either.

It IS my intention to address the idea that Evolution is merely a "theory" with no more validity than the literal creation story of Genesis. Evolution "was" a theory when it was first suggested, the fossil record that was later established proved it as FACT.

Here is the evidence.

We have the fossil remains of these distinct species of Man:

Homo Sapiens - Modern man (from 200,000 years ago)

Homo Neanderthalensis - 250,000 to 29,000 years ago

Homo Heidelbergensis - 800,000 to 300,000 years ago

We know for a FACT that these are all DIFFERENT species of Man and all built shelters, used tools, made fire and even made art.

Now some will try and suggest that the other "species" are merely early man with various deformities or some other such suggestion. The fossil record of these species is numerous enough to render such notions as absurd.

Some will also suggest we haven't properly dated them and dating methods are not accurate. The dating methods do have limits when trying to date things of 'recent' existence but the dating methods for fossils are not unreliable and anyone who suggests they are has little working knowledge of those dating methods. Furthermore it doesn't matter. Even if EVERY species of Man discovered was only 500,000 years old we STILL have a variety of species of Man which is more than enough to establish Evolution as something that is FACT and not just an idea or theory.

We also have the fossil record of these species:

Homo Erectus - Includes several species of very early man dating from 1.8 Million years ago to about 700,000 years ago and all of them made tools and used fire.

Homo Ergaster - Another distinct species of Man that lived from about 1.8 Million years ago to about 1.2 Million years ago and was known to make and use tools.

The above were all absolutely species of Man. All were absolutely different species.

Earlier species of Man do exists going back another Million years or so. These are much more primitive examples of Man and many would argue that they are in fact primates. So I will leave them alone and concentrate ONLY on the above which are KNOWN species that used fire, made tools and later built shelter and made art.

I think it is safe to assume these are things that ONLY Man has ever done.

Also Evolution does NOT happen in a linear straight line with one species replacing the previous. Many times several species co existed for some time with the most successful of the species outlasting the less successful species of Man. The last example of this was Cro Magnon which co existed for a time with Neanderthal until the last Neanderthals died out.

Now if you like you can believe the following.

God created "Man" and Evolution was his tool. God selected a lower species as the raw material. It is unlikely that Homo Erectus spoke a language and named the animals until expelled from a Garden of Eden but it you want to believe that I cannot prove it didn't happen.

You can also believe the literal story of Genesis is true and God created a Earth with a history that never happened and he (or Satan if you like) put fossils in the ground that never lived complete with evidence of stone tools, fire and man made shelters.

None of this is true and fossils are nothing more than strangely shaped rocks and we don't really understand anything about anything.

But if you accept the Natural Fossil Record as evidence that things like Dinosaurs once actually walked the Earth then that same fossil record has examples of various species of Man from various times and that fossil record demonstrates CHANGE OVER TIME.

Which is what Evolution is.

If anyone has any genuine questions I will attempt to POLITELY answer them.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:22:48 PM EDT
no question, just expressing the fact that I am quite impressed with this post.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:35:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 10:39:46 PM EDT by Cavu]
Polite, on ARFCOM, about something with religious overtones?

I wish you the best of luck.

ETA: I agree, your post is well written, but disagree slightly about "religious topic". You have to understand that for some of us, our faith is what guides us. I also applaud your effort at having a civil discussion.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:37:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cavu:
Polite, on ARFCOM, about something with religious overtones?

I wish you the best of luck.



It might very well be just me and Old_Painless answering each other. I'm fine with that.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:37:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 10:42:27 PM EDT by EPOCH96]
IBTG

In before the Garandman

Beer check
Popcorn check

EPOCH
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:38:02 PM EDT
Well yes and no.

That evolution is a working process is fact.

That evolution is responsible for the creation of life and the accent of man is absolutely a theory. You are making assumptions… they may be valid but they are still assumptions. No one can show proof for that premise, you can suppose the evidence to prove the theory might exist but at this time it is missing. Until it can be shown that there is an uninterrupted fossil record that proves the theory it remains theory. The term “missing link’ exists for a reason and that reason is the proof is missing.

I have no problem with the premise that god used evolution to bring man to his current form... but you cannot at this point with certainty say that the theory of evolution shows the manner of the accent of man the complete evidence/record does not at this time exist.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:38:53 PM EDT
I'd like to make a TECHNCIAL point, not intended as a bash of anu beliefe system, etc.

Creationism, "Intelligent design" and other such suggestions are NOT, and never have been, competing theories. They are what a scientist would call a "non-falsifiable theory" which is not a theory at all, but a story that cannot be proven false (not to insult anyone, but the Easter Bunny, Reincarnation, Ghosts, Ecnomics, etc - all fall into this category).

A theory BY DEFINTION has to be falsifiable and has to generate testable hypotheses. It also (generally) has to provide a causal mechanism to explain phenomena. Saying "God did it" does not qualify as a theory, because it cannot be falsified.

Current understanding of how gravity works is a theory. It can be tested. Doesn't mean it FULLY EXPLAINS gravity, just that it is the most complete explanation we have to date. We still don't quite understand how gravity works at a fundamental level, nor what particles/waves transmit the effect - however we have a pretty good predictive model that fits observed reality with great accuracy. You can design experiments that could disprove it, if it were incorrect.

Evolution is also a theory, and is currently the best explanation we have of how species change over time, and how new species appear. It is certainly not a FULL explanation either, and there are lots of details that need to be better understood, and it is MUCH HARDER to test. However, it is still testable, and is still falsifiable - it is just more tricky and slippery. So is much of astrophysics - doesn't mean that the lifecycles of Main Sequence stars isn't theory, just because we cannot test it in a 5-minute expriment in a lab.

Evolution is BY FAR the strongest theory to explain the phenomena (diversity of life on Earth), and is the only real plausible one out there. It is NOT a coincidence that tens of thousands of professional biologists, biochemists, geneticitsts, medical researchers, with PhD's at top universities, research institutions and pharmaceutical and biochemical companies all support the theory, and (in general) those who oppose it do not have any advanced degrees in those fields, and do not work at top universities, companies, etc. (Feel free to trot out conspiracy theories to explain that - but conspiracy theories are generlly ALSO non-falisifiable theories).


Thus, in short - stories that have the explanation "God did it" for complex causal relationships are not theories (when there are more plausible alternatives)*



* - I noted "when there are more plausible alternatives" because there obviously are phenomena where "God did it" are AS GOOD explanations as any that science can CURRENTLY offer. What caused the Big Bang? Nobody knows, and "God did it" is as good an explanation (or theory) as any other, becuase all of the other "theories" are just as non-falsifiable. Similarly the question of what CREATED life (not the mechanism of how it changes over time) is also unknown. Currently, science just has guesses and non-falsifiable theories to explain how LIFE started on Earth, and "God did it" is just as good an explanation.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:39:17 PM EDT
I stopped reading after rule #1.

Good luck.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:41:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I'd like to make a TECHNCIAL point, not intended as a bash of anu beliefe system, etc.

Creationism, "Intelligent design" and other such suggestions are NOT, and never have been, competing theories. They are what a scientist would call a "non-falsifiable theory" which is not a theory at all, but a story that cannot be proven false (not to insult anyone, but the Easter Bunny, Reincarnation, Ghosts, Ecnomics, etc - all fall into this category).

A theory BY DEFINTION has to be falsifiable and has to generate testable hypotheses. It also (generally) has to provide a causal mechanism to explain phenomena. Saying "God did it" does not qualify as a theory, because it cannot be falsified.

Current understanding of how gravity works is a theory. It can be tested. Doesn't mean it FULLY EXPLAINS gravity, just that it is the most complete explanation we have to date. We still don't quite understand how gravity works at a fundamental level, nor what particles/waves transmit the effect - however we have a pretty good predictive model that fits observed reality with great accuracy. You can design experiments that could disprove it, if it were incorrect.

Evolution is also a theory, and is currently the best explanation we have of how species change over time, and how new species appear. It is certainly not a FULL explanation either, and there are lots of details that need to be better understood, and it is MUCH HARDER to test. However, it is still testable, and is still falsifiable - it is just more tricky and slippery. So is much of astrophysics - doesn't mean that the lifecycles of Main Sequence stars isn't theory, just because we cannot test it in a 5-minute expriment in a lab.

Evolution is BY FAR the strongest theory to explain the phenomena (diversity of life on Earth), and is the only real plausible one out there. It is NOT a coincidence that tens of thousands of professional biologists, biochemists, geneticitsts, medical researchers, with PhD's at top universities, research institutions and pharmaceutical and biochemical companies all support the theory, and (in general) those who oppose it do not have any advanced degrees in those fields, and do not work at top universities, companies, etc. (Feel free to trot out conspiracy theories to explain that - but conspiracy theories are generlly ALSO non-falisifiable theories).


Thus, in short - stories that have the explanation "God did it" for complex causal relationships are not theories (when there are more plausible alternatives)*

* - I noted "when there are more plausible alternatives" because there obviously are phenomena where "God did it" are AS GOOD explanations as any that science can CURRENTLY offer. What caused the Big Bang? Nobody knows, and "God did it" is as good an explanation (or theory) as any other, becuase all of the other "theories" are just as non-falsifiable. Similarly the question of what CREATED life (not the mechanism of how it changes over time) is also unknown. Currently, science just has guesses and non-falsifiable theories to explain how LIFE started on Earth, and "God did it" is just as good an explanation.




That is well put.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:42:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 10:43:18 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I'd like to make a TECHNCIAL point, not intended as a bash of anu beliefe system, etc.

...




That is well put.




Except that I lost all credibility when I mis-spelled "technical" in all caps! - in addition to two other typos in that line alone.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:47:36 PM EDT
Bravo.

Let's do discuss evolution instead of arguing creationism vs science.



Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:51:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 10:58:13 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Well yes and no.

That evolution is a working process is fact.

That evolution is responsible for the creation of life and the accent of man is absolutely a theory.



OK STOP.

That is ALL I was trying to achieve.

There are MANY who deny what YOU understand.

OBVIOUSLY we do NOT have the proof for the first creation of life itself. Don't know if we ever will.

And as for the "accent of man" that is indeed a tough one. Hard to decide where man starts. Do you start at stone tools? Man HAD to be man first to come up with the idea.

Do you start at mans "first thought"? Probably a good place but I'll be hard pressed to pick out the first fossil that belonged to the first guy to say "Hey wtf is goning on here?"

So as you can see that one is gonna be a bit tricky. And in fairness we've only been at this 150 years or so and we still have a lot to learn.

But given the fact that we have OBSERVABLE evolutions of Man through time where he became more and more like modern man it is "reasonable" (and yes at this stage it IS an assumption) to assume the equation works in reverse.

But THAT part is still kinda in the works, the fossil record is hardly complete and deciding exactly WHAT qualifies as the "first man" is subjective.

So in regard to your latter points you are CORRECT about Evolution being a "theory" in regards to the origin of life and the "accent of man." This was also noted by DK-PROF.

I was just seeking to establish the fact that Evolution is also an observable FACT given the fossil record that currently exists.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:57:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 11:04:41 PM EDT by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:59:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 10:10:23 AM EDT by npd233]
Edited my stuff back out.

Sorry to SteyrAug and everyone else - I posted before thinking twice. If anyone quoting me desires, please edit it out so SteyrAug can keep this discussion running the way he intended it to. I felt like an idiot this morning. Live and learn.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:02:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
Pardon me for being impolite, but will you guys (both you and Garandman come to mind, but there've been others) quit trying to force your evolutionistic theory posts on us DAY AFTER DAY? Ya'll start a thread, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another.... It's a firearms board, not a religious, biological etc. board. Don't expect that you can post a theory such as this and NOT get 100% of responses to be unsupportive of your decision to post about such topics. Nice touch trying to make your own rules.

I really don't give a shit if you think I'm being offensive, because all I'm doing is declaring my thoughts. I don't come here to discuss religion or evolution rhetoric. I trust I'm not the only one with such thoughts. I hope this thread gets locked too, but sad to say that it'll only lead to another one getting started.




This is general discussion... if you don't like the topic don't click the damn link.

Go away and don't look... we in the mean time will try to act like adults and have a rational conversation.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:03:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Well yes and no.

That evolution is a working process is fact.

That evolution is responsible for the creation of life and the accent of man is absolutely a theory.



OK STOP.

That is ALL I was trying to achieve.

There are MANY who deny what YOU understand.

OBVIOUSLY we do NOT have the proof for the first creation of life itself. Don't know if we ever will.

And as for the "accent of man" that is indeed a tough one. Hard to decide where man starts. Do you start at stone tools? Man HAD to be man first to come up with the idea.

Do you start at mans "first thought"? Probably a good place but I'll be hard pressed to pick out the first fossil that belonged to the first guy to say "Hey wtf is goning on here?"

So as you can see that one is gonna be a bit tricky. And in fairness we've only been at this 150 years or so and we still have a lot to learn.

But given the fact that we have OBSERVABLE evolutions of Man through time where he became more and more like modern man it is "reasonable" (and yes at this stage it IS an assumption) to assume the equation works in reverse.

But THAT part is still kinda in the works, the fossil record is hardly complete and deciding exactly WHAT qualifies as the "first man" is subjective.

So in regard to your latter points you are CORRECT about Evolution being a "theory" in regards to the origin of life and the "accent of man." This was also noted by DK-PROF.

I was just seeking to establish the fact that Evolution is also an observable FACT given the fossil record that currently exists.



Let me add that while I believe that evolution is a working process Dwain was not even close as to how the process actually works.

The process is not the orderly procession of natural selection at work that Dwain believed it was. Of course his was the first stab at understanding the process.

I filmily believe that the processed of evolution is far more tied to natural accidents that natural selection. Even today what scientist think they know about the actual workings of the evolutionary process are mostly just guesses with little real supporting evidence.

You hit at a little of this above.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:03:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:


This is general discussion... if you don't like the topic don't click the damn link.

Go away and don't look... we in the mean time will try to act like adults and have a rational conversation.




And THANK YOU.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:06:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:


Let me add that while I believe that evolution is a working process Dwain was not even close as to how the process actually works.

The process is not the orderly procession of natural selection at work that Dwain believed it was. Of course his was the first stab at understanding the process.

I filmily believe that the processed of evolution is far more tied to natural accidents that natural selection. Even today what scientist think they know about the actual workings of the evolutionary process are mostly just guesses with little real supporting evidence.

You hit at a little of this above.



The ONLY thing I would add is I think "natural selection" IS a process at work, just not the ONLY process at work.

But I think we are on the same page.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:06:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:


Let me add that while I believe that evolution is a working process Dwain was not even close as to how the process actually works.

The process is not the orderly procession of natural selection at work that Dwain believed it was. Of course his was the first stab at understanding the process.

I filmily believe that the processed of evolution is far more tied to natural accidents that natural selection. Even today what scientist think they know about the actual workings of the evolutionary process are mostly just guesses with little real supporting evidence.

You hit at a little of this above.



The ONLY thing I would add is I think "natural selection" IS a process at work, just not the ONLY process at work.

But I think we are on the same page.



I agree.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:07:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:06:29 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
if you can't abide by the rules of the discussion don't post

no one forced you to open this thread
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:07:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
Pardon me for being impolite, but will you guys (both you and Garandman come to mind, but there've been others) quit trying to force your evolutionistic theory posts on us DAY AFTER DAY?




Really? Show me a recent post started by ME on this topic.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:09:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:07:10 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]

please don't qoute things
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:10:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:08:01 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
quotes and comment removed
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:17:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:08:39 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
quote removed

1. Do NOT post here if you are going to insult someone or be offensive.

2. By posting on this topic you agree to Rule #1 and give permission for your account to be locked if you violate Rule #1.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:26:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:09:38 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]

comments removed
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:28:59 PM EDT
Yes the magnetic flux or gravity pull is what keeps the solar winds(created by the sun's gases and eruptions)from frying us like right now!!!

The asteriod belt scatered by pluto rains debris on us and comets,and space debris carry microbes from space onto this water filled planet!!

Thus from warm pockmarked depressions in the river beds we evolved!!!

HG WELLS the origin of mankind! We evolved from single celled amebios!!!


PLEASE!!!

Bob
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:30:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 11:32:22 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

1. Do NOT post here if you are going to insult someone or be offensive.

2. By posting on this topic you agree to Rule #1 and give permission for your account to be locked if you violate Rule #1.




Part of my problem with this post is above: Um.. you don't run the site, you don't make the rules. You post in GD, expect any number of replies, from any number of people. Start you own website if you want to control what's posted.

Next. This thread's about evolution. I never said you posted a previous. You posted this one, which is why your name came to mind. Garandman posted some recently too. Others have too. I've seen several of them popping up since GoatBoy created the Religion forum. It seems to have created an anti-religion theme in GD. Maybe it's just my point of view.

I'm not trying to argue your theories with you, believe what you will, I am not to argue that.

I'd really like to see my account get locked for responding to this thread in the manner I did. I'd actually pay money to see that... If I could bet on it, I'd be in Vegas right now.

Don't get your panties in a bunch when you get replies you don't like in a GD thread. I'm sure you've seen it before. Sorry for not addressing your theory.




Well first you accussed ME of starting several daily posts on the subject. Your exact words were...

"both you and Garandman come to mind"

Second you came here with the hope that this topic get's locked.

I care NOT that you don't address my post (and it has NOTHING to do with a "theory.")

I came to have a POLITE discussion about a topic. Everything was FINE till YOU posted.

If you don't like the topic - don't click on it.

You don't see me posting all over the religious forum about how much their posts piss me off.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:39:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

1. Do NOT post here if you are going to insult someone or be offensive.

2. By posting on this topic you agree to Rule #1 and give permission for your account to be locked if you violate Rule #1.




Part of my problem with this post is above: Um.. you don't run the site, you don't make the rules. You post in GD, expect any number of replies, from any number of people. Start you own website if you want to control what's posted.

Next. This thread's about evolution. I never said you posted a previous. You posted this one, which is why your name came to mind. Garandman posted some recently too. Others have too. I've seen several of them popping up since GoatBoy created the Religion forum. It seems to have created an anti-religion theme in GD. Maybe it's just my point of view.

I'm not trying to argue your theories with you, believe what you will, I am not to argue that.

I'd really like to see my account get locked for responding to this thread in the manner I did. I'd actually pay money to see that... If I could bet on it, I'd be in Vegas right now.

Don't get your panties in a bunch when you get replies you don't like in a GD thread. I'm sure you've seen it before. Sorry for not addressing your theory.



You know I was rooting for you untill that last line,Evolution is not about Religion!!!

You should go back to the religion forum!!! I think SA didn't really think that he is a MOD(but vote for him in the movie forum)!

But your ass is grass if you try some more of this religious mumbo-jumbo in the movie forum!!!!


Bob
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:50:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 10:12:36 AM EDT by npd233]
Carry on


Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:02:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
<looking around not really caring>





LEGHORN(looky here son you gots to at least care)LEGHORN

or else you are just trolling!!!! And thats a no no!!!!


Bob
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:02:46 AM EDT
I believe in magic... and if a magician can pull rabbits out of his hat why can't God snap his fingers and make man exist. Boy, that was easy... next topic!

~Dg84
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:32:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:01:26 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
if you can't abide by the rules of the discussion please don't post
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:40:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
OK, here are the ground rules.

1. Do NOT post here if you are going to insult someone or be offensive.

2. By posting on this topic you agree to Rule #1 and give permission for your account to be locked if you violate Rule #1.

3. This is NOT a religious topic. Some have suggested that EVERYTHING regarding belief of any kind is a "religious" issue but I can't say I subscribe to that idea. I don't think my NON BELIEF in Zeus or Apollo qualifies as religion.

OK, first things first.

It is NOT my intention to disprove the existence of God or the validity of ANY relgion. Personally I don't see how Evolution does either.

It IS my intention to address the idea that Evolution is merely a "theory" with no more validity than the literal creation story of Genesis. Evolution "was" a theory when it was first suggested, the fossil record that was later established proved it as FACT.

Here is the evidence.

We have the fossil remains of these distinct species of Man:

Homo Sapiens - Modern man (from 200,000 years ago)

Homo Neanderthalensis - 250,000 to 29,000 years ago

Homo Heidelbergensis - 800,000 to 300,000 years ago

We know for a FACT that these are all DIFFERENT species of Man and all built shelters, used tools, made fire and even made art.

Now some will try and suggest that the other "species" are merely early man with various deformities or some other such suggestion. The fossil record of these species is numerous enough to render such notions as absurd.

Some will also suggest we haven't properly dated them and dating methods are not accurate. The dating methods do have limits when trying to date things of 'recent' existence but the dating methods for fossils are not unreliable and anyone who suggests they are has little working knowledge of those dating methods. Furthermore it doesn't matter. Even if EVERY species of Man discovered was only 500,000 years old we STILL have a variety of species of Man which is more than enough to establish Evolution as something that is FACT and not just an idea or theory.

We also have the fossil record of these species:

Homo Erectus - Includes several species of very early man dating from 1.8 Million years ago to about 700,000 years ago and all of them made tools and used fire.

Homo Ergaster - Another distinct species of Man that lived from about 1.8 Million years ago to about 1.2 Million years ago and was known to make and use tools.

The above were all absolutely species of Man. All were absolutely different species.

Earlier species of Man do exists going back another Million years or so. These are much more primitive examples of Man and many would argue that they are in fact primates. So I will leave them alone and concentrate ONLY on the above which are KNOWN species that used fire, made tools and later built shelter and made art.

I think it is safe to assume these are things that ONLY Man has ever done.

Also Evolution does NOT happen in a linear straight line with one species replacing the previous. Many times several species co existed for some time with the most successful of the species outlasting the less successful species of Man. The last example of this was Cro Magnon which co existed for a time with Neanderthal until the last Neanderthals died out.

Now if you like you can believe the following.

God created "Man" and Evolution was his tool. God selected a lower species as the raw material. It is unlikely that Homo Erectus spoke a language and named the animals until expelled from a Garden of Eden but it you want to believe that I cannot prove it didn't happen.

You can also believe the literal story of Genesis is true and God created a Earth with a history that never happened and he (or Satan if you like) put fossils in the ground that never lived complete with evidence of stone tools, fire and man made shelters.

None of this is true and fossils are nothing more than strangely shaped rocks and we don't really understand anything about anything.

But if you accept the Natural Fossil Record as evidence that things like Dinosaurs once actually walked the Earth then that same fossil record has examples of various species of Man from various times and that fossil record demonstrates CHANGE OVER TIME.

Which is what Evolution is.

If anyone has any genuine questions I will attempt to POLITELY answer them.




There are so many errors in this post I don't know where to start. Can I suggest a website that gets 1,000,000 hits a month.www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx

Please spend some time there before you try to explain creationism to us again, there is something like 35,000 articles on that site. Look up some articles about fossil dating and find out that many of those dates were decided on BEFORE any dating methods were thought up.
Also, those dating methods Always use assumptions to come to their conclusions, assumptions that have been proven wrong many times.

Also, you don't understand the evolution if you think it is non-religious, Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather and the true inventer of the theory sure thought it was.


Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:54:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
Pardon me for being impolite, but will you guys (both you and Garandman come to mind, but there've been others) quit trying to force your evolutionistic theory posts on us DAY AFTER DAY? Ya'll start a thread, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another.... It's a firearms board, not a religious, biological etc. board. Don't expect that you can post a theory such as this and NOT get 100% of responses to be unsupportive of your decision to post about such topics. Nice touch trying to make your own rules.

I really don't give a shit if you think I'm being offensive, because all I'm doing is declaring my thoughts. I don't come here to discuss religion or evolution rhetoric. I trust I'm not the only one with such thoughts. I hope this thread gets locked too, but sad to say that it'll only lead to another one getting started.




That's nice but this is in GENERAL Discussion. There is NO requirement for the topic to be about guns or not making your own rules (which may or may not be followed). Try not being so full of yourself.

general (adjective) not confined by specialization or careful limitation
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:08:25 AM EDT
+1 to DK-Prof's post.

A lot of people don't realize there is a difference between the word 'theory' as used in everyday conversation and as used in reference to science. Hence, we have people who keep saying, "Evolution is just a theory." No, it's not that kind of theory -- it's a scientific theory. That means it is based on observable evidence and not speculation. If we went by the "It's Just a Theory" people's standard, we could also throw out gravitation since it is best explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:35:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:39:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By werbwerb:
+1 to DK-Prof's post.

A lot of people don't realize there is a difference between the word 'theory' as used in everyday conversation and as used in reference to science. Hence, we have people who keep saying, "Evolution is just a theory." No, it's not that kind of theory -- it's a scientific theory. That means it is based on observable evidence and not speculation. If we went by the "It's Just a Theory" people's standard, we could also throw out gravitation since it is best explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Isn't common use language fun?



I find it to be hilarious on ARFCOM.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:45:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 5:47:23 AM EDT by Old_Painless]
Good morning, SteyrAUG.

Got to admire your guts!

A Polite discussion about evolution? Give me a break.

I have only a couple of short comments.

1. Regarding the theory of evolution; I don't believe it. I have a university degree, so I would offer that I "understand" it. I have taken courses where it was taught and passed them. So I "understand" the theory well.

I just do not believe that it has been proven.

It always amazes me that when people differ about which is best, a Bushmaster or a Colt AR15, we might have heated debates, but the insults are minimal.

But just say that you don't believe in the theory of evolution and suddenly, as one poster has already stated, "They are closed minded. They will not open their minds to possibilities."

See? I don't believe in this unproven theory because I am "closed minded". And I refuse to "open (my) mind to possibilities".

Could there be another possibility?

Maybe, just maybe, (stick with me here, Bubba), I have studied the issue a great deal. And maybe I have done due dilligence and determined, as far as I can tell, that there is no better explaination than the Biblical explaination.

I would expound upon the Biblical explaination, but don't want to violate your rules. So, I'll just stop.

2. My other small point is: As usual, look who is being rude and ugly on this post. The same suspects as always.

One pointed out that you don't own this site and can't make the rules.

They better thank the God they do not believe in that I don't own the site. I know what to do with trolls.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:04:02 AM EDT
Don't feed the trolls, and +1 to DK-Prof.

Allow me to get in the first word on an often-misunderstood subject: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. In it's proper form, it says that the NET ENTROPY of any CLOSED SYSTEM must always increase.

First, the Earth alone is not a closed system - energy constantly streams into it from the Sun. We have to account for at least the energy from the sun, if not the input from the rest of the universe, to properly analyze entropy on the Earth.

Second, entropy is associated with compexity, such as a planet with no life vs a planet teeming with life, but that isn't the complete definition. It is more properly associated with temperature differences - a system with a high temperature zone and a low temperature zone has much lower entropy then the same system with a uniform temperature.

Creationists often misinterpret the second law to mean that a spontantous increase in complexity is impossible. But a spontantous increase in complexity is not what happens with evolution. The sun's entropy increases on a massive scale to support the energy that it sends towards us. This entropy change must be accounted for in order to analyze the change in entropy associated with evolution. When alll of the changes are accounted for, forming a closed system, the entropy does increase as it always does, despite the evolution of intelligent life.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:04:29 AM EDT
A person can still believe in God while accepting Evolution as a valid scientific theory. A Philosophical belief that the image of God is not well defined and is ever changing, and that the bible on tells us God's plan's for human beings. It does not tell us his plan for other living entities.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:06:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:12:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Now if you like you can believe the following.

God created "Man" and Evolution was his tool.



I'm sure that people who believe this are grateful for your permission.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:16:31 AM EDT
I find Intelligent Design to be the most plausible. Evolution you can see every day, but I believe some clockwork mage put the pieces together.

I wonder if other solar systems are full of failed evolution experimants.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:20:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By werbwerb:
+1 to DK-Prof's post.

A lot of people don't realize there is a difference between the word 'theory' as used in everyday conversation and as used in reference to science. Hence, we have people who keep saying, "Evolution is just a theory." No, it's not that kind of theory -- it's a scientific theory. That means it is based on observable evidence and not speculation. If we went by the "It's Just a Theory" people's standard, we could also throw out gravitation since it is best explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity.



If we went by the "It's Just a Theory" people's standard, Creation would be long gone. As DK-Prof described, it doesn't even qualify as a proper theory.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:40:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:02:42 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
if you can't abide by the rules of the discussion don't post
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:48:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
A person can still believe in God while accepting Evolution as a valid scientific theory. A Philosophical belief that the image of God is not well defined and is ever changing, and that the bible on tells us God's plan's for human beings. It does not tell us his plan for other living entities.



Oops ! Reason and common sense are not allowed.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:54:55 AM EDT
The Bible explains why, science explains how.

People that reject science are often rejecting all the tools God has given them.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:55:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
A person can still believe in God while accepting Evolution as a valid scientific theory. A Philosophical belief that the image of God is not well defined and is ever changing, and that the bible on tells us God's plan's for human beings. It does not tell us his plan for other living entities.



Oops ! Reason and common sense are not allowed.



Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean that it is "unreasonable" or lacks "common sense".

I do not agree with anything Bostonterrier said above, yet I have plenty of reason and common sense.

Steyr specifically said. "This is NOT a religious topic." Why do you guys then go out of your way to insult Christians that have different beliefs than you?

Steyr didn't want to discuss religion. He wanted to discuss the theory of evolution.

Your comments above are about religion, not the theory of evolution.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:57:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
The Bible explains why, science explains how.

Sgat1r5



I completely disagree with you, my friend.

But this discussion is not supposed to be about religion, so I will not explain why.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 8:00:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
A person can still believe in God while accepting Evolution as a valid scientific theory. A Philosophical belief that the image of God is not well defined and is ever changing, and that the bible on tells us God's plan's for human beings. It does not tell us his plan for other living entities.



Oops ! Reason and common sense are not allowed.



Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean that it is "unreasonable" or lacks "common sense".

I do not agree with anything Bostonterrier said above, yet I have plenty of reason and common sense.

Steyr specifically said. "This is NOT a religious topic." Why do you guys then go out of your way to insult Christians that have different beliefs than you?

Steyr didn't want to discuss religion. He wanted to discuss the theory of evolution.

Your comments above are about religion, not the theory of evolution.



Just another of the endless example of people going out of their way to insult… this time after they were specifically asked not to interject this crap in this tread. Also note there are no moderators pointing this out… another example of some animals being more equal.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 8:01:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

God created "Man" and Evolution was his tool. God selected a lower species as the raw material. It is unlikely that Homo Erectus spoke a language and named the animals until expelled from a Garden of Eden but it you want to believe that I cannot prove it didn't happen.




This, essentially, is my belief...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top