Religion vs. Science

[Powerman]

Man, I can't wait for the day that people aren't this stupid anymore

If anyone watches this series of videos and believes that this is somehow proof for evolution being false, they need to be evaluated.

Every one of these videos is a contest to see how many illogical statements can be put into a short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0&mode=related&search=

In case you're wondering, yes, I do think you're stupid if you agree with these people.

[darin]

science POINTS to God. :)

[Nienna]

Man, I can't wait for the day that people aren't this stupid anymore

If anyone watches this series of videos and believes that this is somehow proof for evolution being false, they need to be evaluated.

Every one of these videos is a contest to see how many illogical statements can be put into a short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0&mode=related&search=

In case you're wondering, yes, I do think you're stupid if you agree with these people.

Guess you think I'm stupid, then. Everything in that video made sense to me.

[KarlMarx]

If evolution were indeed true, then I have to ask, why are there no differences between the remains of ancient Egyptian mummies (some of which are over 3,000 years old) and those of modern humans?

If I were to accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, then I would expect to see a difference, albeit a slight one.

Again, modern humans arose 50,000 years ago in the plains of Africa, why are we still the same as those humans? The only differences seem to be in race, which is an adaptation to the sun, not necessarily evolution.

Furthermore, I would expect that humans should be very different from one continent to another and perhaps have become separate species by now. After all, the environment of the Sahara is very different than that of the tropical jungle. Why for instance haven't Eskimos become furry to adapt to the cold?

[Missileman]

If I were to accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, then I would expect to see a difference, albeit a slight one.

What about differences in immune systems from one region to another?

[KarlMarx]

What about differences in immune systems from one region to another?
tell me about it

[Missileman]

tell me about it

Things like the Mexicans can drink the water, but it makes tourists ill, or Amazon natives being wiped out by the flu virus because they had no immunity to it. Eskimos have developed the ability to digest blubber, etc.

[Nienna]

Things like the Mexicans can drink the water, but it makes tourists ill, or Amazon natives being wiped out by the flu virus because they had no immunity to it. Eskimos have developed the ability to digest blubber, etc.

Natural selection fits in perfectly with the Biblical Creation model. It's the philosophy of materialism and macroevolution that don't work with Creation, and, also, have very little (if any) scientific evidence to back them up.

[Hobbit]

Not only that, but the examples Missleman gave are all things that can change within a single person and do not require generations of natural selection. If I drank a little bit of Mexican water one day, and increased the dosage each day, I would eventually be able to drink it with no ill effect. My parents are immune to smallpox, but I would possibly die if exposed to it in large amounts. As for the blubber, there's a Guiness World Record for eating glass.

[Gaffer]

What a bunch of crap. I could only stand to watch three of them. But I took away from those three, no PROOF of anything. A lot of demonizing Darwin, and "it's say so right there in the bible".

Evolution is still a theory. It has not been proven. Therefore the theory changes as more information is added to the theory. That's how science works. They are still working on proving evolution. If creationism wants to be considered it has to be proven too. And since creationism relies of the bible entirely it cannot be proven. As the bible only goes back about 4000 years. But the chinese have records that date back over 5000 years. Which means there's a discrepancy in the bible, which according to believers there cannot be. So they begin to manufacture their own data to disprove scientific and historical fact. Psuedo-science.

And there are intermedia fossils of many animals. Horses are a prime example.

As I have said before. Evolution is a slow processes that takes thousands and millions of years. We as a species have only had the ability to observe changes for a few hundred years. As for skin color being effected by the sun. If that's the case then its an evolutionary process. As people adapted to their enviroment. Developing immunity to a virus is an evolutionary process as well.

To deny evolution because it doesn't fit in biblical skeem of things is as bad as evolutionists saying there could be no creator because there is no proof.

[Missileman]

Natural selection fits in perfectly with the Biblical Creation model. It's the philosophy of materialism and macroevolution that don't work with Creation, and, also, have very little (if any) scientific evidence to back them up.

Unlike the mountain of pseudo-scientific evidence that supports the earth being ony a few thousand years old and Noah carrying dinosaurs on the ark, right? :poke:

I've yet to have any reasonable explanation of how a handful of middle-eastern Jews morphed into non-Jewish Asians, Africans, Australian aborigines, Native Americans, etc with totally different languages, alphabets, and religious lore within a few generations. There's not even a shred of evidence that Noah and company had the ability to make a ship capable of crossing an ocean. They would have to have constructed several navigable mini-arks to carry all of the indigenous wildlife to each of the continents as well...funny how that's not mentioned.

The bottom line is that I place more credibility in the observable than in the supernatural. You can try to wish away the scientific evidence that the earth is billions-of-years-old and that we are descended from lower, pre-historic lifeforms, but the evidence exists and is irrefuteable.

Let the Bible serve as a moral compass. Trying to use it as a scientific guide will always leave you pointed in the wrong direction.

[5stringJeff]

Please note that not all Christians believe in a six-day creation. Some of us believe in a billions-of-years-old universe, based on scientific evidence, created by God, as the Bible states.

[Gaffer]

Please note that not all Christians believe in a six-day creation. Some of us believe in a billions-of-years-old universe, based on scientific evidence, created by God, as the Bible states.

I can go along with that. It's much more logical and sensible than the 6 day idea.

[gabosaurus]

Religion is a BELIEF.
Science is a process of educated thought and study.

There is no accurate "word of God." Since God rarely gives press conferences. Jesus never appeared before any Biblical media. The Bible was not even put together until approximately 300 years after his death.

I believe in God. I have religious values. But I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. dmb probably has underwear older than that. :laugh2:

In the words of the late great Bill Hicks: "I have a one-word question for those who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old -- dinosaurs."

[Hobbit]

Why must it always be religion vs. science, as if those two are mutually exclusive. Most Western science was largely driven by a desire to understand God, and the Atheistic view that the two cannot intermingle has actually stifled science in some places.

[avatar4321]

Religion is a BELIEF.
Science is a process of educated thought and study.

There is no accurate "word of God." Since God rarely gives press conferences. Jesus never appeared before any Biblical media. The Bible was not even put together until approximately 300 years after his death.

I believe in God. I have religious values. But I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. dmb probably has underwear older than that. :laugh2:

In the words of the late great Bill Hicks: "I have a one-word question for those who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old -- dinosaurs."

Science and religion are not as different as you seem to think. Both methods of seeking out and learning about the truth around us, just different aspects of that world. Science focuses more on the physical world around us. Religion the Spiritual/moral world around us.

Both take faith. You may not realize it, but it's certainly true. In each, a person experiments. A scientist with the physical world around him. A man of faith through an experimenting on the Word of God. Through these tests, a man of science can learn through trial and error. A man of Faith, however, can learn through revelation from God.

Both science and faith have witnesses. Scientists are the witnesses of science. They are the ones who preform the experiments. Most people in the world don't both to experiment on every little aspect of science themselves. Most inherently rely on the testimony of the scientists as to the experiment, the conditions of the experiment, and the conclusions. Thus through faith men rely on science. If a person wanted to find out for themselves, they could also engage in the experiments and can become witnesses for the experiment.

With religion, God calls witnesses to. These men are prophets and apostles and testify of the things God has taught them. And men who hear their message exercise faith. Through this faith they, like the scientists, may go before God through study and prayer and their own experiment on the Word and learn for themselves from God the same truths those called witnesses recieved. Through this way they also become witness.

Thus, religion and science are not that different. They both seek truth, they both have witnesses that learn that truth and testify of it to others. And we can see the results of both in our lives. The only difference is reason and revelation.

[avatar4321]

Please note that not all Christians believe in a six-day creation. Some of us believe in a billions-of-years-old universe, based on scientific evidence, created by God, as the Bible states.

I think what people fail to realize is that time is a very relative concept.

[avatar4321]

Why must it always be religion vs. science, as if those two are mutually exclusive. Most Western science was largely driven by a desire to understand God, and the Atheistic view that the two cannot intermingle has actually stifled science in some places.

I agree. The greatest scientific discoveries throughout the world was motivated by men who wanted to learn more about God through their study of the world He created. This myth that there is somehow an conflict between science and religion was created because people lacked faith in God and wanted to justify it somehow.

True science and true religion are identical for they teach the same Truth.

[Nienna]

I agree. The greatest scientific discoveries throughout the world was motivated by men who wanted to learn more about God through their study of the world He created. This myth that there is somehow an conflict between science and religion was created because people lacked faith in God and wanted to justify it somehow.

True science and true religion are identical for they teach the same Truth.

What's more, science relies upon the fact that there is ORDER in the universe, or else we couldn't expect to REPEAT experiment results.

[Nienna]

Unlike the mountain of pseudo-scientific evidence that supports the earth being ony a few thousand years old and Noah carrying dinosaurs on the ark, right? :poke:
You'd have to give me an example of the "pseudo-science." The age of the universe in the materialist model has been increasing more & more over the years, because of the idea that evolution needed TIME to progress as far as it did. Radioisotope dating methods are questionable.

And Noah did not CARRY dinosaurs onto the ark. He probably led or herded them. It might interest you to know that, based on FOSSIL EVIDENCE, the average size of a dinosaur was comparable to that of a goat.


I've yet to have any reasonable explanation of how a handful of middle-eastern Jews morphed into non-Jewish Asians, Africans, Australian aborigines, Native Americans, etc with totally different languages, alphabets, and religious lore within a few generations.
This is simple genetics. Ppl with light brown skin are the optimum ancestors if one wanted to produce all the variations of skin color. Say "M" is a gene for a large amount of melanin, and "m" is the gene for a small amount. A person with light brown skin may have the genetic combination "MmMm." If two parents with this genetic set were to produce offspring, their children might have any of sixteen combinations, including "MMMM" (which would be a very dark-skinned, or "black" person) and "mmmm" (which would be a very light-skinned, or "white" person. This can occur in ONE generation. Factor in isolation, inbreeding, and natural selection, and you have the basis for different "races," within maybe a couple hundred years.

The Bible accounts for the difference in languages, also (In the story of Babel), and there are some striking similarities between ancient religions. For instance, many include a Flood story. Wonder why that might be. Hmmmmmm.... :)

The variation between the "races" is trivial. There is much wider variation between two people within the same race than there is between the characteristics that define the separate "races." Even evolutionists agree that separate people groups did not arise from separate animals, but all came from one original population.


There's not even a shred of evidence that Noah and company had the ability to make a ship capable of crossing an ocean. They would have to have constructed several navigable mini-arks to carry all of the indigenous wildlife to each of the continents as well...funny how that's not mentioned.
Noah's ark did not STEER. It was made for maximum STABILITY and capacity. It did not cross an ocean. That would not have been possible, since the entire world was an ocean during the flood. The ark was essentially a gigantic floating box, made to keep its contents safe during a storm. Noah had no destination; his aim was simply to stay above water. The ark's dimensions are recorded in Genesis, and scientists now know that its proportions are ideal for stability.

Neither did Noah carry wildlife to the different continents. The animals dispersed on their own.


The bottom line is that I place more credibility in the observable than in the supernatural. You can try to wish away the scientific evidence that the earth is billions-of-years-old and that we are descended from lower, pre-historic lifeforms, but the evidence exists and is irrefuteable.

Let the Bible serve as a moral compass. Trying to use it as a scientific guide will always leave you pointed in the wrong direction.

If you place more credibility in the observable, how is it that you believe in macroevolution? There has NEVER been one instance of the spontaneous appearance of new genetic information, recorded and observed. This is the lynchpin of the argument for macroevolution. Without it, the model folds. What we OBSERVE is that mutation involves a LOSS of genetic information, and a build-up of mutations renders a creature DISfunctional.

The Bible is not a science text. However, wherever it touches on science, history, etc, it will be proven correct. The great God and CreatOR of the universe knows more about his creation than a bunch of creatURES in white lab coats.

[Missileman]

You'd have to give me an example of the "pseudo-science." The age of the universe in the materialist model has been increasing more & more over the years, because of the idea that evolution needed TIME to progress as far as it did. Radioisotope dating methods are questionable.

The dating methods are only questionable to creationists because it doesn't fit their preconceived timetable. That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists are willing to modify their theories in the face of additional information. Creationists arbitrarily dismiss all evidence that doesn't fit their theory.


And Noah did not CARRY dinosaurs onto the ark. He probably led or herded them. It might interest you to know that, based on FOSSIL EVIDENCE, the average size of a dinosaur was comparable to that of a goat.

I didn't mean Noah physically carried the dinosaurs onto the ark, but that he had them on the ark along with other species. And I have no idea where you got your goat size from, but from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur


Most dinosaurs, however, were much smaller than the giant sauropods. Current evidence suggests that dinosaur average size varied through the Triassic, early Jurassic, late Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[10] According to paleontologist Bill Erickson, estimates of median dinosaur weight range from 500 kg to 5 tonnes; a recent study of 63 dinosaur genera yielded an average weight greater than 850 kg — comparable to the weight of a grizzly bear — and a median weight of nearly 2 tons, or about as much as a giraffe. This contrasts sharply with the size of modern mammals; on average, mammals weigh only 863 grams, or about as much as a large rodent. The smallest dinosaur was bigger than two-thirds of all current mammals; the majority of dinosaurs were bigger than all but 2% of living mammals.

And then there's this guy...you'd think a 65 ton creature would have got at least an honorable mention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauroposeidon


This is simple genetics. Ppl with light brown skin are the optimum ancestors if one wanted to produce all the variations of skin color. Say "M" is a gene for a large amount of melanin, and "m" is the gene for a small amount. A person with light brown skin may have the genetic combination "MmMm." If two parents with this genetic set were to produce offspring, their children might have any of sixteen combinations, including "MMMM" (which would be a very dark-skinned, or "black" person) and "mmmm" (which would be a very light-skinned, or "white" person. This can occur in ONE generation. Factor in isolation, inbreeding, and natural selection, and you have the basis for different "races," within maybe a couple hundred years.

The Bible accounts for the difference in languages, also (In the story of Babel), and there are some striking similarities between ancient religions. For instance, many include a Flood story. Wonder why that might be. Hmmmmmm.... :)

None of this explains how Jews who had personally witnessed the power of God gave rise to Bhuddism, the Greek pantheon, Hinduism, the gods of the ancient Egyptians, Norsemen, and Native Americans, etc.

It doesn't pass the sanity test to claim that these people could reinvent themselves spiritually within a few generations if they had witnessed the real deal.


The variation between the "races" is trivial. There is much wider variation between two people within the same race than there is between the characteristics that define the separate "races." Even evolutionists agree that separate people groups did not arise from separate animals, but all came from one original population.


Noah's ark did not STEER. It was made for maximum STABILITY and capacity. It did not cross an ocean. That would not have been possible, since the entire world was an ocean during the flood. The ark was essentially a gigantic floating box, made to keep its contents safe during a storm. Noah had no destination; his aim was simply to stay above water. The ark's dimensions are recorded in Genesis, and scientists now know that its proportions are ideal for stability.

Neither did Noah carry wildlife to the different continents. The animals dispersed on their own.

This doesn't pass a sanity test either...for instance, how exactly did Kangaroos make it to Australia from Mt. Ararat.

Without navigable, sea-worthy ships, how did men make it to the other continents?


If you place more credibility in the observable, how is it that you believe in macroevolution? There has NEVER been one instance of the spontaneous appearance of new genetic information, recorded and observed. This is the lynchpin of the argument for macroevolution. Without it, the model folds. What we OBSERVE is that mutation involves a LOSS of genetic information, and a build-up of mutations renders a creature DISfunctional.

Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Mutations aren't limited to LOSS of information. Mutations don't always render a creature disfunctional.


The Bible is not a science text. However, wherever it touches on science, history, etc, it will be proven correct. The great God and CreatOR of the universe knows more about his creation than a bunch of creatURES in white lab coats.

What I find particularly amazing is totality of the blindness of faith exhibited by some people. Thousands of years ago, the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc. all devised elaborate religions that turned out to be a bunch of bunk, yet the elaborate, thousands of years old bunk of the Jews is different?

[The ClayTaurus]

If evolution were indeed true, then I have to ask, why are there no differences between the remains of ancient Egyptian mummies (some of which are over 3,000 years old) and those of modern humans?Evolution is not something that HAS to happen, only something that can happen.

We seem to be doing pretty well as we are... what need to evolve is there?

[avatar4321]

Evolution is not something that HAS to happen, only something that can happen.

We seem to be doing pretty well as we are... what need to evolve is there?

I guess we have different definitions of "doing pretty well" because I completely disagree.

[The ClayTaurus]

I guess we have different definitions of "doing pretty well" because I completely disagree.Your disgust at the general lack of morality in society aside, the population is flourishing... unless you contend human population is on the decline?

[gabosaurus]

How can you expect people to respect your religious values if you don't respect the religious values of others?
Clay Taurus makes some good points. Which reaffirm my opinion that religion is primarily faith based.

[avatar4321]

Your disgust at the general lack of morality in society aside, the population is flourishing... unless you contend human population is on the decline?

No, but I dont think it would take much to start incredibly conflict that could destroy most of mankind.

[avatar4321]

How can you expect people to respect your religious values if you don't respect the religious values of others?
Clay Taurus makes some good points. Which reaffirm my opinion that religion is primarily faith based.

Who has disrespected him?

[Missileman]

Who has disrespected him?

Yeah, I don't get that accusation either. :dunno:

[avatar4321]

Yeah, I don't get that accusation either. :dunno:

Yeah, i must have missed something. I also dont understand how that proves her point that religion is mostly faith based... Especially since religion is clearly based on faith. because faith proceeds the miracle.

[The ClayTaurus]

No, but I dont think it would take much to start incredibly conflict that could destroy most of mankind.Evolution doesn't correct for catastrophic incidents, be they natural or species-induced.

What need to evolve is there?

[The ClayTaurus]

How can you expect people to respect your religious values if you don't respect the religious values of others?
Clay Taurus makes some good points. Which reaffirm my opinion that religion is primarily faith based.Could you explain how my points reaffirm your opinion?

[avatar4321]

Could you explain how my points reaffirm your opinion?

I'm not sure she knows..

[Powerman]

Guess you think I'm stupid, then. Everything in that video made sense to me.

Stupid? Who knows

Ignorant of science? Definitely

No one with a good grasp of physical sciences or logic for that matter watches those videos and comes away agreeing with anything they said.

[Powerman]

If evolution were indeed true, then I have to ask, why are there no differences between the remains of ancient Egyptian mummies (some of which are over 3,000 years old) and those of modern humans?

If I were to accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, then I would expect to see a difference, albeit a slight one.

Again, modern humans arose 50,000 years ago in the plains of Africa, why are we still the same as those humans? The only differences seem to be in race, which is an adaptation to the sun, not necessarily evolution.

Furthermore, I would expect that humans should be very different from one continent to another and perhaps have become separate species by now. After all, the environment of the Sahara is very different than that of the tropical jungle. Why for instance haven't Eskimos become furry to adapt to the cold?

I think you answered your own question without realizing it. If modern humans arose 50K years ago then why would you expect people 3k years ago to be significantly different when they weren't significantly different 3K years ago? Maybe the lesson here is that it takes a very long time for changes to be made.

[Powerman]

Why must it always be religion vs. science, as if those two are mutually exclusive. Most Western science was largely driven by a desire to understand God, and the Atheistic view that the two cannot intermingle has actually stifled science in some places.

Um...probably because religious people come out of left field and claim scientific theories to be bogus

Of course they only investigate the ones that seem to raise questions about their beliefs. Funny how you never see Christians lining up to question the merits of the uncertainty principle.

[Pale Rider]

What about differences in immune systems from one region to another?

Mutations.

[Missileman]

Mutations.

Okay, and?

[Hobbit]

Um...probably because religious people come out of left field and claim scientific theories to be bogus

Of course they only investigate the ones that seem to raise questions about their beliefs. Funny how you never see Christians lining up to question the merits of the uncertainty principle.

Ok, then I'm guessing you're forgetting how many scientific advancements were made in pursuit of God? Newton's laws, for example.

I also think you're forgetting that it's the nature of scientific theories to constantly be challenged. If we hadn't challenged the theory that it was the nature of things to move in arcs, ballistics would still be disfunctional and the space program would never have left the ground. If you can't stand to see theories challenged, you must not have much faith in the theories.

[eighballsidepocket]

Things like the Mexicans can drink the water, but it makes tourists ill, or Amazon natives being wiped out by the flu virus because they had no immunity to it. Eskimos have developed the ability to digest blubber, etc.

I'm perfectly serious, so please don't turn this into some joke now, but I remember the first time I ate a tinnee weenie piece of a fresh Jalopeno pepper as a kid, and thought my mouth was being stung by a hundred bees.

My family didn't make fresh Jalopenos a daily part of our staple diet. Now with that, I've grown up around Mexican American kids and have many adult Mexican American friends, and they can eat Jalepeno's like I eat raisins, without even breaking into a sweat. They can even eat hotter types of peppers than those and not even blink an eye. They relish the flavor and enjoy those little hot buggers with their meals.

With that said, did they evolve separately from us Norte Americanos and now have some genes that allow them to tolerate hot peppers and us Anglo's can't? Hardly.

If I were to have those little hot buggers from the time I was put on solid food from being weaned of mother's milk and grew up on them, I'd develop the ability to stand the pain, and probably my metabolism and taste buds would somehow adapt. Living proof is my Dad, who comes from about as Northern European stock as you can have. My father's parents were both from central Sweden.

I remember seeing my dad eat those hot Mexican peppers as a kid. He wasn't supposed to be pre-disposed to handle those buggers as he's from a culture and human subspecies of Northern European humans that lived on very bland diets of fish and grains, with a few berries thrown in. My dad said the first peppers were tough as a kid, but he gradually in some mysterious bodily way, got used to the "sting" and began to enjoy the peppers not as a challenge to his manhood, but as tasty, wholesome food.

Us humans do have certain micro-evolutionary qualities, but not to the extent to become other than humans.

As Marx mentioned, you have the lighter skinned Homo Sapiens in the Northern climbs, who need that sun light to penetrate the epidermis to produce sufficient Vitamin D, yet in the equatorial regions we have most dark skinned races or Homo Sapiens that have more than enough sunlight for Vitamin D production, and need the extra Melanin to protect them from over exposure and skin damage.

Us upper lattitude humans want to mimic the skin tones of the equatorials, and end up with leathery skinned bodies, and lots of skin cancer as a reward for our vanity.

I see the skin color distribution as very much a micro evolutionary work within God's creation of the human species, but don't expect the human species to develop into a computer nerd, woose, type of species just because we have culturally changed our means of survival. I doubt that we will develop extra digits to enhance our keyboard abilities over the 10 digit species of Homo Sapien.

Naked we were born, naked we leave the earth.

We are one of the very few species that can't survive on our own after birth without a long duration of nurturing by our parents. In many ways this goes "flap" in the face of hard core evolutionists. You'd think by now that we as a human species would have babies popping out of the womb and walking and talking within days or hours of their birth, as we see with myriads of animal species. Antelope babies must get up, run, and stay with the herd or they are food for predators. Why do we continue to maturate so slowly. Why do we have to rely for so long on parental wisdom and instruction as compared to the myriads of species? Why haven't we evolved as the others?

Low and behold, we still take 9-12+ months to take that first bipedal step, we still take that same amount of time to say Ma ma or Da Da. We still become breedable creatures until a pre-set time on each one of our biological clocks, that really hasn't changed over thousands of years.

Sure some cattle steroids may have skewed some of our clocks and cause our females and males to prematurely grow into puberty type ways earlier than the norm, but the gene clock hasn't changed.

Never the less the micro evolutionary work still is present within the species, as in others. There are color variations, and bodily shape variations, of every species.....Just look at cats and dogs.........Every size/shape and color of the rainbow exists, but the cat family is the cat family and the dog family is the dog family. Dogs can't breed with cats and vice versa.

Yes, we live longer, but that's a "no brainer" as we have developed medications, safer foods, safer living environments, and less strenuous work on our bodily frames through the thousands of years.

Man, thousands of years ago, had a nice big brain, but his learning/knowledge was exponentially growing as he gradually conquered his environments, obstacles and dangers to his benefit his well -being.

Ever wonder why computer science only a few years ago is now obsolete? Not evolution, but exponential compounding of knowledge and learning continuing at an ever accellerating pace. It's not unlike the first litter of rabbits. You start out with a small group of 6 bunnies, and then three of the six have 6 more offspring. Now you have 18 bunnies and 9 have 6 more offspring and there's 54 bunnies.......and on and on and on....

Man started with fire making, man compounded his knowledge upon that to forging or foundrying metals from the earth, then compounds upon that knowledge to design weapons or tools to further his convenience or alleviate hardship of survival. By the time we were to Roman times, man had Siege engines, cross bows, aquaducts, sewer systems, and even had learned how to make concrete. We had a copper age, then a bronze age, then an Iron age, and then an Aluminum/steel/titanium age, and now we live in the Carbon Fibre/Kevlar age. Man's knowledge is exponentially growing because he's sourcing an incredibly growing back log of previously learned knowledge.

The first guy that had to bust a piece of rock to make it sharp edged to use as a knife to skin a carcass or make an arrow head, didn't have a big old back log of previously learned knowledge to build upon, but every strike of the rock, every little happen stance discovery within his environment added another growing point in knowledge to build upon.

A brain with the capacity was provided.

If you could take a baby from 10,000 years ago and put him/her in a 21 century family, he/she would have the same capacity to learn and be up to speed with the modern times as ourselves.
*****
Just picture what you would do, "modern man" if you were dropped into an environment 10,000 years ago. Would you be able to find or create your 21 century life, and it's leisure type tools and refinements? With your backlog of history and possible scientific understanding of the environment, you could accellerate your fellow ancient man's life, and knowledge. Never the less, you would have to start with the same raw materials and the absence of an electrical grid, or cultural substructure built upon those thousands of years of gained knowledge to start or get anywhere.

Even the bible says in the last days that knowledge will go, "exponential". Funny how so many overlook that statement, as it's happening now and we know it full well.

Also the seeking of knowledge, aside from seeing it's source from a divine Creator is also predicted in scripture.

Intellect and knowledge is man's credo, and religion. To be smart is to be advanced, to be vernacularly blessed is to be venerated. Man desires all the "kudos", as he has already "written off" the existence of a devine Creator or source for all that exists, both materially and immaterially. Magazines with titles such as: Self, People, etc.. are just the evidences of man's love fest with him/herself.

Man is where he is because he built upon previous knowledge. Not because he has evolved into a better species. In fact, if evolution is indeed working within our species, we'd have the absence of war and be living in utopian societys by now. Instead we daily and yearly affirm the biblical scriptures that we are a most spiritually shipwrecked species that was once created to reflect God's image and nature, but have sorely lost that in our quest to be our own little gods.

[Lightning Waltz]

Ok, then I'm guessing you're forgetting how many scientific advancements were made in pursuit of God? Newton's laws, for example.

I also think you're forgetting that it's the nature of scientific theories to constantly be challenged. If we hadn't challenged the theory that it was the nature of things to move in arcs, ballistics would still be disfunctional and the space program would never have left the ground. If you can't stand to see theories challenged, you must not have much faith in the theories.

To have faith in theories would be unscientific...

There is such a disconnect going on here, it's hard to reply.

That scientific theories change is a GOOD thing. It shows that as people gain more knowledge about the world, we aren't dogmatic and believe what was held before dispite the evidence, but change the theory to match what we now know of the world...which only make sense.

But, as Oscar Wilde once said, "Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived."

[Missileman]

Us humans do have certain micro-evolutionary qualities, but not to the extent to become other than humans.


Who said anything about a new human species?

[Hobbit]

To have faith in theories would be unscientific...

There is such a disconnect going on here, it's hard to reply.

That scientific theories change is a GOOD thing. It shows that as people gain more knowledge about the world, we aren't dogmatic and believe what was held before dispite the evidence, but change the theory to match what we now know of the world...which only make sense.

But, as Oscar Wilde once said, "Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived."

Oscar Wilde also said that patriotism is a virtue of the vicious. I think he needs to just stick to plays.

If questioning and changing theories is good, then how come everyone brings up irreducable complexity or the Cambrian explosion, we have accusations of 'religious zealot' thrown everywhere. Same thing goes for the medieval warming period and 'industrialist parrot.'

[Hagbard Celine]

Oscar Wilde also said that patriotism is a virtue of the vicious. I think he needs to just stick to plays.

If questioning and changing theories is good, then how come everyone brings up irreducable complexity or the Cambrian explosion, we have accusations of 'religious zealot' thrown everywhere. Same thing goes for the medieval warming period and 'industrialist parrot.'

Because irreduceable complexity is flawed and the Cambrian explosion has been explained--even if it hadn't been it still wouldn't jive with Genesis. *shrug*

[Lightning Waltz]

If questioning and changing theories is good, then how come everyone brings up irreducable complexity or the Cambrian explosion, we have accusations of 'religious zealot' thrown everywhere. Same thing goes for the medieval warming period and 'industrialist parrot.'

Questioning theories is a good thing (as long as you are willing to listen to the answer)
Questioning theories and having evidence to back up your disputes with a theory, an even better thing.
Disputing a theory without evidence just because it doesn't agree with what you want to believe is true, is a bad thing.

[Lightning Waltz]

Oscar Wilde also said that patriotism is a virtue of the vicious. I think he needs to just stick to plays.

BTW, weren't you the one that got upset when you created a thread and people questioned the source?

[Doniston]

Please note that not all Christians believe in a six-day creation. Some of us believe in a billions-of-years-old universe, based on scientific evidence, created by God, as the Bible states. Ok, got to add my two cents

I had a friend (now deceased) who was a minister in a sect called Brethren in Christ. He beleived that all the six days were twenty-four hours long except one which was Millions of years long, and which accounted for the dinos.

[Geolibertarian]

Man, I can't wait for the day that people aren't this stupid anymore

If anyone watches this series of videos and believes that this is somehow proof for evolution being false, they need to be evaluated.

Every one of these videos is a contest to see how many illogical statements can be put into a short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0&mode=related&search=

In case you're wondering, yes, I do think you're stupid if you agree with these people.
Dear God! The sheer number of lies, falsehoods, mistruths, and deceptions in that video is staggering.

The worst I've ever seen is this one, but still...wow...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

[LOki]

If evolution were indeed true, then I have to ask, why are there no differences between the remains of ancient Egyptian mummies (some of which are over 3,000 years old) and those of modern humans?

If I were to accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, then I would expect to see a difference, albeit a slight one.

Again, modern humans arose 50,000 years ago in the plains of Africa, why are we still the same as those humans? The only differences seem to be in race, which is an adaptation to the sun, not necessarily evolution.

Furthermore, I would expect that humans should be very different from one continent to another and perhaps have become separate species by now. After all, the environment of the Sahara is very different than that of the tropical jungle. Why for instance haven't Eskimos become furry to adapt to the cold?The reason is that since the rise of homo-sapiens-sapiens, there there has been very little population isolation among us that occured long enough that sufficient differences accumulated, where environmental pressures might select for what difference might arise, to cause speciation.