Atheist here, to answer any questions...
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2531 Nov 22, 2012
Minister Robert Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
I see now....An entire population of a species is lucky enough to sprout wings and fly.
See, again you misrepresent evolution. It's the classic "strawman fallacy" where you build up a false image of something to more easily tear it down. You are arguing against something that isn't evolution but magic. It's more what you believe than what I believe in.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2532 Nov 22, 2012
Klink wrote:
<quoted text>
You have only faith since there is no evidence for evolution. You simply accept "because I said so" of 'science'.
No, because close to all scientists in all fields of science agrees, and the evidence is there for everyone to read.
Klink wrote:
Christians on the otherhand do not follow any MAN even if there are 2 billion MEN all in agreement.
More than 1/3 of all christians accept evolution. ONLY those with a literal view of Genesis refuse to do so. Religious bias is a powerful thing and has throughout history caused many believers to believe many false things. And it's still doing it.
Klink wrote:
If Christians followed consensus we would all be Muslim. Instead we follow the written word of God.
You should both follow the evidence instead.
Klink wrote:
It is the faith of Jesus for which there is plenty of HISTORY & SCIENCE to confirm 100%.
No contemporary evidence for Jesus.
I suspect he never even lived, but that's another debate.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2533 Nov 22, 2012
Klink wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your belief. Get some evidence to prove it and we 'll call it a science.
It's science and you can read all about it.
Klink wrote:
The evidence confirms the biblical account
In no way.
Take the ark-story alone. Impossible.
Klink wrote:
So, if you would like to produce one of these evolved subhuman creatures we will look at it. Until then the evidence supports the Bible.
The evidence is there, you just won't look. At least not objectively.
http://www.becominghuman.org/
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2534 Nov 22, 2012
Klink wrote:
So, if you would like to produce one of these evolved subhuman creatures we will look at it. Until then the evidence supports the Bible.
Neanderthals or homo erectus. Both are well documented sub-/pre-humans. Their tool-making abilities are well documented. Their diets and social habits have been documented through extensive archaeological findings. Their ranges on the planet and climate adaptations are known too.

What would you like to discuss about either of these human relatives? They are the 'evolved subhumans' you requested and extensive data exists to provide insight into their time on Earth.

Neanderthals(which existed on the planet for much longer than modern humans have existed) wore clothes and homo erectus did not(but did use cutting tools and had body hair more consistent with modern humans) if that helps you decide which one to discuss. So, which one?
Blackberry

Brampton, Canada

#2535 Nov 22, 2012
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
Neanderthals or homo erectus. Both are well documented sub-/pre-humans. Their tool-making abilities are well documented. Their diets and social habits have been documented through extensive archaeological findings. Their ranges on the planet and climate adaptations are known too.
What would you like to discuss about either of these human relatives? They are the 'evolved subhumans' you requested and extensive data exists to provide insight into their time on Earth.
Neanderthals(which existed on the planet for much longer than modern humans have existed) wore clothes and homo erectus did not(but did use cutting tools and had body hair more consistent with modern humans) if that helps you decide which one to discuss. So, which one?
Incorrect!

There is no DNA evidence, just the artistic imagination of misguided men looking at some lovely bones!

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2536 Nov 22, 2012
Minister Robert Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
How absurd!!!
A bug crawls around for a few million and decides to give itself some black spots and an orange body??....A hairless mouse thinks it is a bit cold and wills itself to grow fur???.....A stubnosed pre-elephant creature's body decides to grow a large long nose so in 10 million years it will win the local water-spraying contest??
A pre-alligator thinks if it selects itself a very long body with a wide mouth and lots of teeth so in 20 million years it can chomp down on a wild boar??....YUMMY!...but a long time to wait for a good meal.....
Talk about reading up!!....Do you actually expect sane, intelligent, educated , humans such as myself to believe such utter fantasies??
You said it....no foresight,,no goal....This very statement shows no creativity, design, or structure, or compatability, or function, or purpose.....Without these things, which can only exist with a creator/designer doing the work, no creature could possibly evolve itself into anything workable/survivable.
Yeah that's exactly how evolution works, an animal thinks it needs a certain characteristic and then grows it. Every time I think you have said about the dumbest thing you top yourself.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2537 Nov 22, 2012
Minister Robert Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
WHO decides then....If a monkey needs a long tail to swing on grapevines, does the monkey decide, or the roaring lions below, or the trees, or who???
If some monkeys have superior tails and some monkeys and inferior tails, then those with superior tails with survive longer and reproduce more. Those with inferior tails will die out.

No one 'decides'.
Minister Robert Lee wrote:
A selecTION must have an intelligent selecTOR, sir.
No, it doesn't.
Minister Robert Lee wrote:
Evolution asks us to believe in magic. Creationism offers the only logical answer,,,,, an intelligent designer.
Evolution requires no magic. An intelligent designer is completely magic.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2539 Nov 22, 2012
Klink wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians on the otherhand do not follow any MAN even if there are 2 billion MEN all in agreement.
Sure, you do. You follow the writings of the men who wrote the Bible.
Klink wrote:
It is the faith of Jesus for which there is plenty of HISTORY & SCIENCE to confirm 100%.
There's plenty of history and science to disprove it completely.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2542 Nov 22, 2012
Blackberry wrote:
<quoted text>
All that is JUNK.
What a convincing argument!!! You win.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2543 Nov 22, 2012
Blackberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense!
WE make different types of animals and plants by deliberately cross breading them.
Were there polar bears and penguins on the ark?
Blind Faithiness

North Augusta, SC

#2546 Nov 22, 2012
Blackberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect!
There is no DNA evidence, just the artistic imagination of misguided men looking at some lovely bones!
Maybe you can give us a plausible scenario as to why the god of the bible would have created multiple varieties of humans that wear clothing, live in social groups, and have the ability to make complex tools, as opposed to these beings evolutionary predecessors to modern humans.

We have the DNA of neanderthals and know that their DNA is not modern human DNA. Where did these beings come from? Why did the god of the bible create them?

There absolutely is DNA evidence, regardless of your exclamations that there isn't, Lackberry.
From the Smithsonian Institute(one of many sources):
"In recent years, ancient DNA has been used to understand aspects of Neanderthal biology. Both mitochondrial (mtDNA) and nuclear DNA have been extracted from fossils and sequenced. These sequences have provided information about the appearance, speech capability and population structure of Neanderthals as well as their phylogenetic relationship with anatomically modern humans."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/...

I'm ready to hear from Klink(and Lackberry you are free to chime in your nonsense too).
Klink

Plover, WI

#2547 Nov 22, 2012
olasonn wrote:
The evidence is there, you just won't look. At least not objectively.
http://www.becominghuman.org/

I ask you to show evidence for your 'caveman' and this is the best you can do? I'm not looking for your evidence for you, you will need to produce it.

Klink

Plover, WI

#2548 Nov 22, 2012
Blind Faithiness wrote:
Neanderthals or homo erectus. Both are well documented sub-/pre-humans. Their tool-making abilities are well documented. Their diets and social habits have been documented through extensive archaeological findings. Their ranges on the planet and climate adaptations are known too.
What would you like to discuss about either of these human relatives? They are the 'evolved subhumans' you requested and extensive data exists to provide insight into their time on Earth.
Neanderthals(which existed on the planet for much longer than modern humans have existed) wore clothes and homo erectus did not(but did use cutting tools and had body hair more consistent with modern humans) if that helps you decide which one to discuss. So, which one?



There is no evidence for the 'homo erectus' such as peking man. You have just believed volumes of textbook sophistry.

Neanderthal were completely human, tho apparently did live more years than modern man (just as the Bible says!). They had larger skulls to hold more brains, too. Not what we would expect from a lower life subhuman. The dating of the neanderthal as with the rest of your theory is disputed by other scientists.


NEANDERTHALS Caveman or Human?

On a trip to view the fossil remains of the neanderthal Dr. Jack Cuozzo makes startling discoveries. Trained in orthodontic surgery Dr. Cuozzo was able to obtain scans of the skull and jaws that reveal often overlooked clues.

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten lied about the age of neanderthal skulls and artifacts for 30 years. A German university panel exposed his frauds and he resigned Feb 2005. Protsch had dated the "bischof-speyer" skeleton at 21,300 years but testing at Oxford showed them to be 3300 years old.
archive.org/details/NeanderthalCavemanOrHuman


Klink

Plover, WI

#2550 Nov 22, 2012
The_Box wrote:
Sure, you do. You follow the writings of the men who wrote the Bible.

There's plenty of history and science to disprove it completely.

Of course men wrote the Bible, who would you expect? However what they wrote no man could know, and since they say it was a revelation from God & creator, then history bears out what they wrote, proving the thing was indeed from God. The book of Revelation is an example written by John yet verse 1 says it came from Jesus. The book contains things no man could have known. Only God knows the future.

If the thing written is fulfilled then it was God inspired.

"Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, you may believe that I am he." (John 13:19)

-
There is no history or science to disprove the Bible and you have not produced any.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2551 Nov 22, 2012
Blackberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Their DNA was preserved across the journey.
How did Noah do that? And how do you know that?
Klink

Plover, WI

#2552 Nov 22, 2012
Blind Faithiness wrote:
We have the DNA of neanderthals and know that their DNA is not modern human DNA. Where did these beings come from? Why did the god of the bible create them?
There absolutely is DNA evidence, regardless of your exclamations that there isn't, Lackberry.
From the Smithsonian Institute(one of many sources):
"In recent years, ancient DNA has been used to understand aspects of Neanderthal biology. Both mitochondrial (mtDNA) and nuclear DNA have been extracted from fossils and sequenced. These sequences have provided information about the appearance, speech capability and population structure of Neanderthals as well as their phylogenetic relationship with anatomically modern humans."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/...
I'm ready to hear from Klink(and Lackberry you are free to chime in your nonsense too).

We cant really look at DNA on a forum so have to rely on experts who have reviewed the data. There are differing views since much of the DNA confirmed the link to modern man.


Red-Haired, Fast-Talking Neanderthals
by Dr. Georgia Purdom

Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language. This is not surprising to creationists who have long held that Neanderthals are fully human, descendants of Adam and Eve, and therefore would be expected to share many modern human characteristics. These findings are contrary to evolutionary-based predictions of Neanderthals as knuckle dragging, dark-haired, grunting savages.

A portion of the FOXP2 gene that has been linked to speech and language and a portion of the MC1R gene important in melanin production have been recovered and sequenced from Neanderthal DNA. This is the first time genes from nuclear DNA have been recovered from Neanderthal fossils.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/r...

Neandertal genome like ours
http://creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ou...
Neanderthal's genome is well within man's diversity.


Diversity includes the small human 'hobbits'

Hobbling the Hobbit
http://creation.com/hobbling-the-hobbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensi...


Blind Faithiness

North Augusta, SC

#2553 Nov 22, 2012
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
How did Noah do that? And how do you know that?
We all know that Lackberry and klink can't produce anything resembling evidence for their claims. They are content to pretend that their authoritative-less authority is enough to simply claim that empirical evidence isn't evidence and that their foundation-less assertions, though lacking anything resembling evidence,*are* credible and should be considered . In the world of self-delusion, honesty and empirical support are trumped by the need for the improbable to be true, regardless of reality.
Minister Robert Lee

Campbellsville, KY

#2554 Nov 22, 2012
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
In a population of monkeys some will have longer and some shorter tails, based on their genes. If it's an advantage in that area to have longer tails those with long tails will have more offspring than those with shorter ones, and the next generation will consist of more long-tail monkeys...and so on.
The environment decides.
<quoted text>
No, look at my simplified explanation and open up a book on biology if you need a longer one.
<quoted text>
Not at all, and you must believe this yourself. Unless you think polar bears were on the ark, animals adapted for their environment.
Thank you for your answer,,,,The non-intelligent, non-thinking, non-creative, utterly non-comprehending and incapable, brainless environment selects the monkeys with the longer tails and keeps on (selecting) them and killing off the shorter tailed monkeys until there are only long tailed monkeys left that fit their environment....CORRECT??

Then this means that trees, grapevines, rocks, water, slime, air, molds, etc, all help to (select) the best monkeys to live amongst themselves.... not by making the monkeys sick with disease etc, but by deciding their fate/evolutionary demise or continuance, based on how long their tails need to be....RIGHT??

And you see no irrationality or biological/scientific fantasy at all with such a theory??? Do you consider your answer to make common sense to sane intelligent people?

Let me understand you thoroughly.... It is an advantage for monkeys to have longer tails so they can swing through trees better, so the environment decides to give more of them longer tails and gradually phase out the shorter-tailed monkeys?? How long does it take for this to happen until there are only long-tailed monkeys left??....50,000 years? 2 million years??.... What are the chances the same jungle would even still be there long enough to make this happen??

Gotta go.....Practicing the Franz Liszt piano sonata in B minor....Need a third arm/hand......I am certain my environment will grow me one soon.......

Since: Aug 10

Pacific Northwest USA

#2555 Nov 22, 2012
Minister Robert Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your answer,,,,The non-intelligent, non-thinking, non-creative, utterly non-comprehending and incapable, brainless environment selects the monkeys with the longer tails and keeps on (selecting) them and killing off the shorter tailed monkeys until there are only long tailed monkeys left that fit their environment....CORRECT??
Then this means that trees, grapevines, rocks, water, slime, air, molds, etc, all help to (select) the best monkeys to live amongst themselves.... not by making the monkeys sick with disease etc, but by deciding their fate/evolutionary demise or continuance, based on how long their tails need to be....RIGHT??
And you see no irrationality or biological/scientific fantasy at all with such a theory??? Do you consider your answer to make common sense to sane intelligent people?
Let me understand you thoroughly.... It is an advantage for monkeys to have longer tails so they can swing through trees better, so the environment decides to give more of them longer tails and gradually phase out the shorter-tailed monkeys?? How long does it take for this to happen until there are only long-tailed monkeys left??....50,000 years? 2 million years??.... What are the chances the same jungle would even still be there long enough to make this happen??
Gotta go.....Practicing the Franz Liszt piano sonata in B minor....Need a third arm/hand......I am certain my environment will grow me one soon.......
Perhaps we can coax you to play it for us at the Banana Pudding party!
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2556 Nov 22, 2012
Blackberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Their DNA was preserved across the journey.
What does that mean? Noah took DNA-samples?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Holy Spirit changes lives? (Jul '14) 10 min Eyeswideopenh 57
Rev. 13:11 - What do the two horns mean ? 16 min poor old non-ruler 104
The Investigative Judgement is False Doctrine 2 hr Manon Peclard 193
DID JESUS MOVE TO GOD's RIGHT HAND IN 1844? (Mar '10) 6 hr DANNO 70
SDA main PILLAR coming DOWN! (May '14) 6 hr Shane Rohrich 3,523
Zionist Obsessed Government 8 hr Shane Rohrich 6
SHANE ROHRICH is a sick n twisted cult freak 8 hr Shane Rohrich 3
More from around the web