Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

Last I checked the Equator was somewhere down about Kenya?

 

Brocktroon.

One current theory holds that human beings.
'Homo sapiens sapiens.'
Evolved from 'Homo sapiens neandertalensis'
And that THEY
Evolved from 'homo sapiens'

And homo sapiens evolved from 'Homo erectus'
The first 'non ape'

Homo habalis ..was the last 'ape'
on our line...

Our line is the line gorillas and chimps and all the things you call APE.
Are NOT on.

An interesting puzzle to solve...
Far more interesting than simply believing that some god of some monotheistic sect. Suddenly made everything exist..
Ex nihilo

Occam

PS.
SO
'blacks' evolved from a different type of
ape than 'whites'
Well the last APE on our line was 3 steps back down the ladder...

What is this ridiculous focus on colour?
African people have as much genetic variation to eskimos as they have to anglos..
So do eskimos come from a different type of ape?
What about kalahari bushmen or mongol hearders?

What about everyone with big noses came from a different type of ape?

 

Anything you guys want to keep not relating to the topic of this thread ... like the bickerin', start cuttin'n'pasting now. Cause if it has nothing to do with the topic, it's comming out before end of day 11/30/2004.


http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753, titled Off-Topic Thread Pruning and Hijacking's ... read it!

Darrell

 

Darrel.. .. Theres not way to start saving the posts because we have no way of knowing what YOU will determine is 'Off-Topic'?

 

Darrell

Well occams recent posts are about evolution...
And that is what the thread is about.

Occam

 

bravo, that is great news. I have read the bickering enough times, so I feel no need to save it.
I applaud the move, and hope it carries over to other threads where many, my self included, have gotten sidetracked.

 

It seems to me that you fail to understand that a theory can only be disproven by the finding of contradictory information or facts. It is not a fact that Allah exists. You can offer no concrete evidence that he does. It is all speculation. Unless more sufficient evidence arises then you cannot expect us to disregard this theory. I find it ironic that you come here representing the Muslim religion, yet you are attempting to convince us by using science to defeat science. Science is currently our best way of learning the truth. We know all that we do today thanks to many courageous men who sought the truth even in the face of persecution. You are trying to stand on the shoulders of these men in an attempt to discredit one of them.

 

Shockwave.
A Theory doesnt really get 'Disproven' since its not really a 'Fact' to begin with.
Thats why we say 'Theory'.

Not to turn this into a Definition Game - but many can make a convincing argument that Evolutionism is more of a Hypothesis and not even a true 'Theory'.

In anycase, Darwin and Darwinism are said to have been 'Disproven' by modern Science.
In Fairness.. Darwin simply did not know (and couldnt have) that many of his theories were Unscientific.
well.. there was no research at the time anyway.

To those in Islam and Christianity there is no 'Science' VS 'Religion'.
God Creates Science, Nature Physics etc etc.

Im not gonna speak for Islam but Im pretty sure they see it as the same way (except Allah creating instead of God)

 

Point well taken on that. You are right. However, my point is that it would be illogical in my opinon to throw all scientific evidence and theory out the window and head down the path of blind faith. There is massive evidence that backs up the theory of evolution. Unless greater evidence or a better theory comes along then it would be illogical to disregard it. I believe it to be a far better explanation of how we came into being than by being created in an instant by some type of entity. If you want to look at the bigger picture, as in the creation of the universe and not just man, that is an entirely different matter. I have my own unique views on that subject.

 

the way i see it you aim to disprove a theory to see how valid it is. and from what i have found there is more evidence against creationism than there is evolution. hence in my mind the theory of evolution is more probable. i wonder, how do people who believe absolutely in creationism explain vestigial organs? these are outstandingly supportive of the theory of evolution.

 

Sooty

There is more validation in existant reality for evolution.
Than creationism.

Occam

 

People Explain 'Vestigial Organs' the good old fashioned way - by studying and researching.
By learning.

Eventually an explanation is found for the very few body parts left, which are not understood.

Just because there are 3-4 'mystery' body parts left (there used to be over 100) does not mean they must also happen to be 3-4 parts 'left over' from when we were Apes.

 

It is much easier for me to believe what we have learned through science than to believe that we were "poofed" into place by some god, more specifically the christian god.

No one has all the answers when it comes to how we got here, but when we are searching for them it is smart (and we will get farther) to take the more logical, reasonable path than to sum it up to something of a devine being and just leave it at that.

Besides, the fact that we share so much DNA with the great apes is pretty indicitive that we are related in some way. Again, much more logical than just popping out of nowhere on the command of some god.

But none of that means there isn't some sort of "god" out there. It just means it is likely we evolved.

 

WE WERE NEVER "APES" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the "other" great apes & the humans shared a common ancestor...

(well, i'll be a monkey's uncle!)

 

Homo sapient sapient is bio-chemically related to all life on earth. A demonstratable fact.

Biological Evolution through mutation is an observed fact.

Biological Evolutionary Adaptations stands a highly backed up theory. No accredited scientist denies it's existence.

No one has yet offered a serious alternative to evolution, because there exist zero evidence for any other general mechanism than evolution to account for the diversity of related life-forms on earth.

Creationism is not a theory. The are zero pieces of evidence to back it up. It's not even a hypothesis, because it does not attempt to explain the observed facts.

 

I reckon us humans crash landed on planet Earth from another planet what was technologically advanced a few million years ago and had to adapt to a hunter gather existance just to stay alive.Over time primative tools were made and the various techno ages such as the stone age and iron age came about.

 

The alleged impossibility of things such as cells coming together and evolving into everything we know doesn't discredit the theory of evolution; it's a testament to the miracle of life!

 

If so, how do you explain the biochemical signiture common to all life on earth- including us?

"The alleged impossibility of things such as cells coming together and evolving into everything we know doesn't discredit the theory of evolution; it's a testament to the miracle of life!"

Indeed!

Blind believers don't understand that life is a low probability event.

 

I'll have to think about that one.

 

I have read of this signature, which is a protein that is common to all life on earth. This certainly points to a common origin of all living things. The idea that E.T.'s had some input at some point is a very interesting one. Many ancient sources claim just that. The Babylonians built temples with rooftop courtyards expressly for the purpose of interaction with the 'Gods'. The word that they used to describe the first hybrid of our two species was 'adamae', meaning earthling. In Bali, they have kept records of their geneology for 450 generations, back to a union of an ET female and their king.
I have often looked at the story of Adam's rib as analogous to the event of their genetic input which we could only understand when put into terminology we could then grasp.