"Creationism Trumps Evolution"

[??????????]

That's not trolling. It's stating the obvious, which you missed, and now you're very embarrassed to admit it!

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

[muon2]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

[??????????]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

True enough, but their is something divine about humans that science is unable to explain. Something very different about humans that is unlike any other animal on the planet.

[John Dibble]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

True enough, but their is something divine about humans that science is unable to explain. Something very different about humans that is unlike any other animal on the planet.

Who knows. It could just be that we evolved sentience. It could be instilled. Once again, who knows. There may be some other race out in this big universe of ours that considers us to be extremely dumb creatures.

[Inverted Things]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

True enough, but their is something divine about humans that science is unable to explain. Something very different about humans that is unlike any other animal on the planet.

I see no evidence of the divine in the human race. The ONLY difference between us and any other animal is ability to communicate via abstract symbols (reading, writing).

[J. J.]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

True enough, but their is something divine about humans that science is unable to explain. Something very different about humans that is unlike any other animal on the planet.

I see no evidence of the divine in the human race. The ONLY difference between us and any other animal is ability to communicate via abstract symbols (reading, writing).

There is at least one other; we are curious about the abstract.

[??????????]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

True enough, but their is something divine about humans that science is unable to explain. Something very different about humans that is unlike any other animal on the planet.

I see no evidence of the divine in the human race. The ONLY difference between us and any other animal is ability to communicate via abstract symbols (reading, writing).

I don't see animals developing technology, building advanced houses or using advanced tools, or farming.

[Josh/Devilman88]

One thing I have to ask.... If we came from apes when why are the apes still not chaning? I mean I don't see any half apes /men walking around...

[Nation]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

[Josh/Devilman88]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

[Nym90]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

Religion is all about faith. Nothing can be "proven" wrong, or right for that manner either.

Science and religion are two completely different things. They don't run into problems unless one attempts to infringe on the other's turf.

[Josh/Devilman88]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

Religion is all about faith. Nothing can be "proven" wrong, or right for that manner either.

Science and religion are two completely different things. They don't run into problems unless one attempts to infringe on the other's turf.

Science was made to try to get God out of the picture.

[??????????]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

Religion is all about faith. Nothing can be "proven" wrong, or right for that manner either.

Science and religion are two completely different things. They don't run into problems unless one attempts to infringe on the other's turf.

Science was made to try to get God out of the picture.

Actually that is incorrect. Originally science was created to prove the existence of God.

[Josh/Devilman88]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

Religion is all about faith. Nothing can be "proven" wrong, or right for that manner either.

Science and religion are two completely different things. They don't run into problems unless one attempts to infringe on the other's turf.

Science was made to try to get God out of the picture.

Actually that is incorrect. Originally science was created to prove the existence of God.

Oh, but today science is to disprove God and what he did.

[opebo]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

Religion is all about faith. Nothing can be "proven" wrong, or right for that manner either.

Science and religion are two completely different things. They don't run into problems unless one attempts to infringe on the other's turf.

Science was made to try to get God out of the picture.

There is no god 'in the picture' - you're just imagining that.  Rational people are not obliged to disprove the exsistence of every fatuous flight of fancy the weak-minded come up with.

[John Dibble]

We didn't come directly from apes, they are simply a common ancestor of humans.

I will believed that bunch of bull when you and prove to me the Bible is wrong, and so far no one has.

Religion is all about faith. Nothing can be "proven" wrong, or right for that manner either.

Science and religion are two completely different things. They don't run into problems unless one attempts to infringe on the other's turf.

Science was made to try to get God out of the picture.

There is no god 'in the picture' - you're just imagining that.  Rational people are not obliged to disprove the exsistence of every fatuous flight of fancy the weak-minded come up with.

Disregarding opebo's anti-religious bias, he is correct that god is pretty much non-existant in science. Science is equipped and meant to study the material, not the ethereal.

[Inverted Things]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.

True enough, but their is something divine about humans that science is unable to explain. Something very different about humans that is unlike any other animal on the planet.

I see no evidence of the divine in the human race. The ONLY difference between us and any other animal is ability to communicate via abstract symbols (reading, writing).

I don't see animals developing technology, building advanced houses or using advanced tools, or farming.

Bees build advanced houses, chimps have tools, squirrels plant nuts (farming). Granted these are all somewhat crude examples, but they show that the difference between humans and animals is one of degree, not divinity.

[Engineer]

Bees don't build advanced houses.  Bees build the same type of housing as all other bees of their type. 

Chimps don't have tools.  They don't produce anything.  They use twigs and such to get termites, but they don't make them.

Squirrels don't 'plant' nuts.  They just forget where they bury them.

Animals don't evolve, they adapt.  Big difference.  A lizard doesn't change into a bird.  Just using logic it should be obvious.  First, if evolution is valid, why don't we see it today.  Second, there isn't any fossil evidence of 'missing link', ie. one creature to another.  Third, a creature going from say walk to flight, would be at a terrible disadvantage (stubby wings in lieu of arms) and would be eliminated, since it would be easy to catch and eat.  Fourth, if it was a genetic freak, you'd have to have a second one for procreation.  So logically the evolution theory has some serious flaws.

[John Dibble]

Bees don't build advanced houses.  Bees build the same type of housing as all other bees of their type. 

Chimps don't have tools.  They don't produce anything.  They use twigs and such to get termites, but they don't make them.

Squirrels don't 'plant' nuts.  They just forget where they bury them.

All true, except for the chimps one. Chimps don't make tools, but they do figure out how to use natural objects as tools. Humanity's first tools were likely just sticks and rocks, and then we figured out ways to make them better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, evolution doesn't happen overnight - it is a process.

If you mean the dinosaurs when you say lizards evolving into birds, we have found fossilized feathers on some of the later dinosaurs(raptor types, for example) - something dinosaurs before them did not have, but somehow these ones did have.

Also, I can give a somewhat unnatural version of evolution that humanity has seen - dogs. Natural selection, which is part of the evolutionary theory, says that the fittest animals, those with the traits most suited to survival in their particular area, will be the ones to breed, and those who do not have those traits will likely die out. Now, with dogs we performed an unnatural version of this by breeding the traits we desired - hence the various breeds of dogs we have today. There are big ones, small ones, working ones, toy ones, ect - and each has similar traits as well, telling us they came from a similar initial animal(probably wolves). We don't generally see this occur naturally because it would require a great shift in the environment for natural selection of this degree to become necessary.

As far as missing links, fossil evidence is hard to find, so don't expect to find every transition. And we do see instances of similar species over time - one eventually replaces the other, and then they are eventually replaced, and so on.

Walking to flight - well, as with the dinosaurs from before, I mentioned raptor types. Those types already had short, stubby arms arms - they mainly relied on their strong legs, clawed feed, and teeth for fighting(much as, say a hawk, relies on it's talons and beak). Having one disadvantage does not destroy all other advantages that a creature has - we are comparably weak to most predators, and would be easily picked off without our intelligence, which is the strength that allows us to outwit predators and develop tools to enhance our natural fighting abilities.

Genetic freaks - once again, evolution is a process that takes lots of time. It happens through both natural selection and mutation. Natural selection is only traits that get passed - if I was the only person on the planet with blue eyes, it wouldn't keep me from being able to breed with everyone else. Continuing with dogs, we breed their traits, but most of them are able to breed with eachother. Then there's mutations, some of which are good, some of which are bad, some of which don't really do anything. Mutations generally only effect a few genes, so the mutated individual of the species should be able to still mate with the rest of the species, and thusly pass on the mutated genes to offspring, and so on and so forth.

Now, let's look at an example of two genetically similar species - donkies and horses. Donkies and horses, if the general premise of evolution holds true, look like they would have come from a similar species. They can also mate - a male donkey and a female horse can produce a mule. However, there's a problem with this hybrid - it's sterile. The genetics are similar enough to produce offspring, but that offspring is not viable. It's quite possible that this is what happens when a species is apart too long - one area changes, forcing natural selection to change those living in the area, and mutations sometimes occur, and over enough time the new species becomes completely incompatible with the old one. In the case of horses and donkies, the two are not quite completely incompatible yet, but are close.

Still, after having said all that, I do agree that evolution is not a perfect theory - but the general idea is sound and probably closest to what actually happens. So, it must be continued to be studied and refined.

[ATFFL]

One thing I have to ask.... If we came from apes when why are the apes still not chaning? I mean I don't see any half apes /men walking around...

You clearly have not seen me with my shirt off.

[Josh/Devilman88]

One thing I have to ask.... If we came from apes when why are the apes still not chaning? I mean I don't see any half apes /men walking around...

You clearly have not seen me with my shirt off.

HAHAH