Here's an idea that might not be popular with some.
How about we lump 'evolution' threads in with religion and politics and ban them!
I reckon that a very good idea, for my own mental health as much as anything.
Missing link
- Thread starter swagman
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
I reckon that a very good idea, for my own mental health as much as anything.
Don't worry, everyone is only expressing an opinion. By the time the true explanation is uncovered, if it ever is, we will all have been dead for a very long time.
As I said earlier, what difference will it make when we do find the Ultimate Question?
Humour is a 'social lubricant'. Societies that have it 'rub along' better.
What we associate as beautiful scene - say, rolling meadows with flowers and a stream, is a productive environment, which is most likely to support humans comfortably. So we have evolved to be drawn to such environments. BUT, ancient humans needed individuals that were not put off by an environment that others found hostile and repellent. These individuals struck off across deserts and mountains, to seek other societies and hence mix the gene pool. A static unchanging society is often a doomed society.
It's enough - there doesn't have to be anything more!
Jim
I think your all barking up the wrong tree.
Based on many years of observation I have compelling evidence that the source of the human race is definatly vegetable based.
Animals (including humans) are actually more related to fungi than to plants
Think about that next time you eat mushrooms
Animals (including humans) are actually more related to fungi than to plants
It certainly felt like it working in the NHS; kept in the dark and fed..........
Here's an idea that might not be popular with some.
How about we lump 'evolution' threads in with religion and politics and ban them!
Naah, the sections should be Fact, Fiction and Lies respectively
Heres an idea if you dont like it dont click on the post.
I do manage it most of the time but sometimes i just get sucked in
And to nudge things back on topic a little. Here's a nice video explaining why this hole Ida thing has been blown way out of proportion by media and glory seeking scientists.
You do seem to be a very thoughtful and intelligent person and I'm happy to let this drop and go do something useful
"I simply don't agree that changes over time equals evolution" I'm afraid that's pretty much the definition of evolution. If a creature can accrue changes over time and keep on doing so indefinitely eventually it will be totally different to its original form. There's simply no mechanism that can stop it.
A quick response to clarify.
A creature can accrue changes, that I don't take issue with (look at the various human "races", dog breeds, different varieties of cat, bird and so on) all are changes accrued over time which make something different. That I agree with.
The part I don't believe is established is that those changes can give rise to, or rise from, respectively, a non-human, a non-dog, a non-cat or a non-bird.
I think there should be a more clearly defined difference between change within a given kind of organism and change from one kind ot another.
I find it hard to agree with people who insist there's no change within a species (it's clear that there is) but I find it equally hard to agree with people who insist that those changes are equal to (or the mechanism of) change between drastically different organisms such as dinosaur to bird, cow to whale or ape to human. That changes happen is established as discussed in previous posts, just how much of an effect those changes can have simply is not. That's where we move into interpretation of facts and away from hard science.
I think it's about time for me to back out of this completely now though, I just felt your comment deserved a post to clarify my position on it.
Cheers folks.
It doesn't matter what side of the fence you sit on there is more evidence to
prove we have evolved than we were created.
There is more proof the world is older than the believed 6000 years.
I will go with science over a book with no evidence any day.
It's been proved that aids and some other viruses have evolved.
Swagman.
prove we have evolved than we were created.
There is more proof the world is older than the believed 6000 years.
I will go with science over a book with no evidence any day.
It's been proved that aids and some other viruses have evolved.
Swagman.
Maybe both theories are correct and fit within one another. The Earth is 4.7 billion years old according to geophysicists, but only 6000 according to creationists.
The mayans were of the idea that the earth is old but runs in cycles of creation each lasting 5200 years, 5 cycles to one long count of 26000 years which maps the stars full rotation. They knew that events in space dictated life on this planet. They say at the end of each cycle something happens that changes the world and the life on it.
So like i say, maybe they are both part of the same, with neither party wanting to see that or unable to see that.
swagman
That's exactly the kind of thing I've been arguing against.
We have evidence. That's it.
How you interpret that evidence is another matter.
Your choice is to interpret that evidence as evidence FOR evolution, but it isn't YOUR evidence. You can't claim it as evidence for one side over another. Well, you can, but it isn't a valid claim.
The evidence is (for example) we have a pile of fossils of animals that do not currently exist.
That's not evidence for evolution any more than it's evidence for any one of a number of creationist views, even those as patently odd as "they were put here to test our faith".
The only thing the evidence proves (in that case) is that there are fossils. That evidence doesn't prove that those were once living creatures (though I can't say I agree with the people who think they weren't). That evidence doesn't prove that those living creatures had any offspring that lived long enough to reproduce. That evidence proves only that we do have fossils. Everything beyond that is one degree of interpretation or another.
All the surrounding and supporting evidences (rock layers, markers and so on) are all open to all sides of the debate too.
Both worldviews exist on the same planet, with the same history and the same evidence. That evidence is the only fact, your interpretation, my interpretation, anyone's interpretation is just that. Interpretation.
Creationist worldviews and evolutionist worldviews ALL "predict" the world will end up as it is right around now.
The fact that the world is, in fact, as it is now can not be claimed as proof for either side to the exclusion of the other.
I state again my view.
I dunno what happened.
That's exactly the kind of thing I've been arguing against.
We have evidence. That's it.
How you interpret that evidence is another matter.
Your choice is to interpret that evidence as evidence FOR evolution, but it isn't YOUR evidence. You can't claim it as evidence for one side over another. Well, you can, but it isn't a valid claim.
The evidence is (for example) we have a pile of fossils of animals that do not currently exist.
That's not evidence for evolution any more than it's evidence for any one of a number of creationist views, even those as patently odd as "they were put here to test our faith".
The only thing the evidence proves (in that case) is that there are fossils. That evidence doesn't prove that those were once living creatures (though I can't say I agree with the people who think they weren't). That evidence doesn't prove that those living creatures had any offspring that lived long enough to reproduce. That evidence proves only that we do have fossils. Everything beyond that is one degree of interpretation or another.
All the surrounding and supporting evidences (rock layers, markers and so on) are all open to all sides of the debate too.
Both worldviews exist on the same planet, with the same history and the same evidence. That evidence is the only fact, your interpretation, my interpretation, anyone's interpretation is just that. Interpretation.
Creationist worldviews and evolutionist worldviews ALL "predict" the world will end up as it is right around now.
The fact that the world is, in fact, as it is now can not be claimed as proof for either side to the exclusion of the other.
I state again my view.
I dunno what happened.
Not all creationists believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. That view is taken by those that read the six days of creation as literal 24 hour days.
There are many people who believe that the creative days were not actual 24 hour days, rather just separate, distinct periods of time expressed as days to help the first readers of Genesis to understand better what they were reading.
We do this today. How often have our older members here when speaking to our younger members, said something like 'Back in my day'? The person is talking about a period of time rather than a single 24 hour day.
Interpreting Genesis in this way means that there is scope to agree with the scientific theory that the Earth itself is 4.7 billion years old as we have no way of knowing how long each creative day was or indeed if they were all of the same length in time.
the longest a creation 'day' can be, is 930 year, Adam lived that long, and was created on the sixth day.
The seventh day, the 'day of rest' started before Adam died according to Genesis. Which means that the sixth day had already ended.
There are some who believe that we are still in 'the day of rest' now.
My point is that the argument used by skeptics of the Genesis account that everything happened in a literal week 6000 years ago is not necessarily a winning argument depending on how you interpret the Genesis account.
that's the point, Adam was 930 born live and died on the sixth day (remembering that the day starts at sundown.)
or 2 Peter Chapter 3 "that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years"
Tadpole we are obviously not on the same page of the Bible
I'm not trying to turn this into a scriptural debate but I'd like to clear this up if possible.
Genesis 2:2,3 states that on the seventh day God came to the completion of his work and proceeded to rest. He blessed the seventh day and from then on it became the sabbath.
This was the day after he had created Adam. The sixth day on which Adam was created ended with the creation of Adam not his death. Then God rested on the seventh day whilst Adam was still alive and according to Genesis 2:3 has been continuing to rest until now. So Adam died during the seventh day of rest as has everyone else since. His lifespan has no bearing whatsoever on the length of any creative day.
It can be confusing putting things in order when reading Genesis because Chapter 1 sets out the order of events and then Chapter 2 goes back over it filling in details pertinent to the creation of life. Nowhere is there any reference to a creative day beginning and ending with the creation and death of Adam.
The 2 Peter scripture you have quoted is merely stating that a thousand years is like a day to God. Which is what you would expect of a person who according to modern science created the earth 4.7 billion years ago!
the length of Adams life limits the max lenght of a creation day to 930 years, No where in the bilble does is day that we are still in gods day of rest. No where.
I'll raise your to a
Adam was created on the sixth day. He died on the seventh. So it's impossible to deduct how long a creative day is from his lifespan.
Genesis 2:3 suggests we are still in the day of rest.
I must apologise to everyone if by replying to Hillbills's comment about creationists and then Tadpole and I getting into scripture, we've gone off topic.
The point I was trying to raise is that if you take away the common misconception, heralded by the churches I might add, that the earth was created in six 24 hour days then creationists can find common ground with evolutionists.
If you asked a geologist to explain to a simple pastoral people the order of events involving the formation of the universe and the emergence of life on Earth then he/she could do little better than follow closely the order laid out in Genesis.
Common ground leads to agreement.
Agreement to understanding.
Understanding to peace.
Let's have some peace!
to a Adam was created on the sixth day. He died on the seventh. So it's impossible to deduct how long a creative day is from his lifespan.
Genesis 2:3 suggests we are still in the day of rest.
I must apologise to everyone if by replying to Hillbills's comment about creationists and then Tadpole and I getting into scripture, we've gone off topic.
The point I was trying to raise is that if you take away the common misconception, heralded by the churches I might add, that the earth was created in six 24 hour days then creationists can find common ground with evolutionists.
If you asked a geologist to explain to a simple pastoral people the order of events involving the formation of the universe and the emergence of life on Earth then he/she could do little better than follow closely the order laid out in Genesis.
Common ground leads to agreement.
Agreement to understanding.
Understanding to peace.
Let's have some peace!
Well, except for the bit about the Earth (and indeed, the distinction between Day and Night) being created before the Sun, Moon and stars... That doesn't seem right.
