Where Adam And Eve Quadrupedal?

[Shyone]

Lucy is my thought though. It is confirmed that she was bipedal. If Adam and Eve were quadrupedal, and were displaced from Eden and transformed into bipedal, Is it not possible that there would have been the same process as Darwin originally explained, the first step of the evolution of man would have been going from quadrupedal to bipedal. Yet, we don't have that missing link, so I still am left in wonder if it were possible that there is no missing link and man was made that way by God.

 

The next problem is the dating. Lucy is around 4 Mya which would make that ponder totally bogus, if the time-line is accurate. I guess I just wonder if maybe Lucy was a descendant of Adam, in crude form.

It's difficult answering some of your questions because there is a mixture of fact and fantasy, truth and fiction, myth and reality. Most of us are accustomed to looking at things one way or another, but not both.

 

Hence, trying to figure out how many triceratops could fit onto Noah's ark is ludicrous.

 

But in a sense, I understand sort of what you are trying to say, so let me give this a brief stab...

 

Homo sapiens is not and never has been quadruped. That is by definition. We are humans. Lucy is not homo sapiens. She is rather an ancestor of humans, but still bipedal. So we are already way beyond (or before) homo sapiens.

 

Homo does have ancestors that are, in all likelihood, quadrupedal, but they were - animals (and so are we, but they did not resemble humans). These animals predate lucy and ardi and even apes.

 

Maybe the ancestor to humans and apes, and the common ancestor between apes and lizards, and the common ancestor between pine trees and porcupines, and even further back to the single cell that first arose from the methane gases in the slime was created by god. Or the chemical reactions that are self replicating proteins.

 

Nah, that was just a chemical reaction.

 

But you are pursuing a God that is very very tiny, and the gap is squeezing it tight, and pretty soon (even for you) it will just go "poof".

 

Really; god messing with mutations. That's a riot.

[chefranden]

You claim t be "deeper" but your initial question is ludicrous and shows basic ignorance of the subject, hence the perceived need for the videos.

In a nutshell no, homo sapiens has ;never been a quadraped.

 

Why? Because you say so? They were in the Garden of Eden with a talking,....snake But you are telling me that to believe that Adam and Eve could have been quadrupeds in the Garden is,....ignorant

 

When did snakes begin to speak?

 

Yes, when did snakes begin to speak. And more importantly, when did they stop speaking?

 

You really expected this speculation to be taken seriously? Surely not.

 

Hint: There was no Garden of Eden. There was no Adam. There was no Eve. There was no talking snake, and there was and is no god. Genesis is a story, something like Alice in Wonderland but less entertaining. Genesis is not natural history.

[Karhoof]

Is it just me, or does anybody else feel like screaming!?!?!?!

How close to the flame can a moth get before singeing its wings off?!?

 

Yoyo, read the post in Davka's link.

 

Then re-read your OP and think about all the various mammals that suffer "trevail" in childbirth. Did their gods forbid their ancestors from eating a certain thing - thus causing pain during childbirth?

 

Inteligence or no, we are still mammals. Animals.

We are aren't magically created beings with a right to lord over all earths creation.

It's a position our ancestors gave us, that they earned through trial and error.

 

I swear, you come SOOOOOOOOO close sometimes to seeing that last stumbling block...

 

... and then turn around and wander back where you came from.

[OpheliaGinger]

In order for humans to be quadrupedal, we would have to have a straighter back, either the legs shorter or arms longer, our foreman magnum placed more towards the middle of the skull, longer pelvis, and padding on our hands and feet--thus be a completely different species.

[Ouroboros]

Yoyo,

 

I kind it humorous to think of Adam and Eve walking on all four. The punishment for the snake was to lose its legs and crawl, and the punishment for humans was to walk upright. I wonder, did they had a tail too?

 

Speculations, speculations.

[Guest end3]

As punishment Yoyo, God wanted Eve to consider the pain before bringing more stupidity into this world....get it?

[Abiyoyo]

As punishment Yoyo, God wanted Eve to consider the pain before bringing more stupidity into this world....get it?

 

[ContraBardus]

As punishment Yoyo, God wanted Eve to consider the pain before bringing more stupidity into this world....get it?

 

 

Wow! Proof people can both bend over and act like morons at the same time.

 

The picture too!

 

This does nothing to prove your point. While it is possible for humans to do this, it is neither the natural state, nor would it be particularly comfortable. Acting like this on a permanent basis would lead to serious problems and eventually make these people completely immobile from back, leg, arm, and other issues related to strain on parts of the body not designed to do this.

 

Put simply, after everything presented, you've done everything you can to prove that, as it relates to this subject, you've got your head so far up your own ass you're in danger of choking on your own neck.

 

All of your suggestions, conjectures, and suppositions are easily refuted and credibly disproved. The fact that you don't want to admit that the evidence is there, and that it points to a completely different conclusion than you're suggesting, is irrelevant. It's still there, it still says you're wrong, and you've still got far less, as in none, to support your suggestions here.

 

Put simply, it's cute, but you're just being stubborn.

 

Your argument thus far literally amounts to little more than this:

 

 

Admittedly, it's a little amusing, but not really healthy on your part.

 

While you argue against the 'completeness' or 'lack of conclusiveness' of the evidence. You also completely forget to mention that your conjectures, suppositions, and assumptions have far, far, less evidence. None in fact, aside from you were able to think them up.

 

You're also gravely misrepresenting the evidence there is. To the point that you must be doing it intentionally. You -know- you're lying and misrepresenting the evidence. You're doing it on purpose, and intentionally disregarding it.

 

This must be true, because you've been presented with solid evidence to counter all of your claims thus far, and have chosen to willfully ignore it.

 

You've not even bothered to try and refute it. You've got no alternative. You are literally just making stuff up as you go while disregarding anything that's been presented to counter your claims.

 

You've got no testable hypothesis, no evidence that even infers any of your claims, you can't provide any method to verify your claims, and are just using nonfalsifiable claims to cover your tracks.

 

That doesn't fly in Science. You've got no support, and there's no reason to take any of your claims seriously. There's just nothing to them but your own imagination and conjecture. It's not enough to qualify as a hypothesis as it doesn't even involve any kind of observation.

 

You -obviously- do not understand the concept of the Scientific Method. Much less the concept of Evolution.

 

It is clear you do not, because your posts -clearly indicate it-. It's not just that you don't -believe- in it. You do not understand it, and it's glaringly obvious that you do not. You lack comprehension, regardless of whether or not you can repeat the definition.

 

If you did have comprehension and understanding, you would not be using these tactics and conjectures to try and refute it. You would not be relying on unfalsifiable claims, speculative guesses, or things that don't even infer your conclusions are accurate as anything more than something you imagined, to counter actual evidence, logic, observation, and reason.

 

As I mentioned, this doesn't even qualify as philosophy, because it does not involve logic or inference. Even Philosophy has standards, and your arguments do not meet them.

 

It's just something you thought up. None of this comes close to the Scientific Method, and it doesn't even qualify as philosophical, because it follows no line of logic and is not inferred by anything. If you don't like the Scientific Method, then feel free to make your own method that can be reproduced and verified as effective by other independent sources.

 

You're just talking out your ass. No one is, nor should they be, taking you seriously at this point.

 

In other words...

 

 

At the end of the day, all Science but Math based science is about 'probability'.

 

The probability you are correct is so low it's not worth considering as valid.

 

The probability of Evolution Theory being correct is far, far greater. About as close to certain as you can get.

 

It will never be 100%, but it's so far up there, it's not worth considering as false. Evolution as it stands now, like Gravity, is close enough to certainty to consider valid.

 

And you know what? That's exactly the case. It's accepted, it's effective, it's validated by practical application, as well as verification by multiple independent sources.

 

The probability that you've outdone the experts with nothing more than sitting in an armchair and thinking stuff up is so low that you've got about as much chance of walking to Australia from Florida.

 

Sure, it's -possible- but do you seriously think you've got any chance of really doing it?

 

[Abiyoyo]

 

You're just talking out your ass. No one is, nor should they be, taking you seriously at this point.

 

In other words...

 

 

 

It was a joke,...for,...Legion

[FiddlingAround]

It was funny, too.

 

From a movie, I'm guessing. Which one?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

You're also gravely misrepresenting the evidence there is. To the point that you must be doing it intentionally. You -know- you're lying and misrepresenting the evidence. You're doing it on purpose, and intentionally disregarding it.

 

This must be true, because you've been presented with solid evidence to counter all of your claims thus far, and have chosen to willfully ignore it.

 

You've not even bothered to try and refute it. You've got no alternative. You are literally just making stuff up as you go while disregarding anything that's been presented to counter your claims.

 

You've got no testable hypothesis, no evidence that even infers any of your claims, you can't provide any method to verify your claims, and are just using nonfalsifiable claims to cover your tracks.

 

That doesn't fly in Science. You've got no support, and there's no reason to take any of your claims seriously. There's just nothing to them but your own imagination and conjecture. It's not enough to qualify as a hypothesis as it doesn't even involve any kind of observation.

 

You -obviously- do not understand the concept of the Scientific Method. Much less the concept of Evolution.

 

It is clear you do not, because your posts -clearly indicate it-. It's not just that you don't -believe- in it. You do not understand it, and it's glaringly obvious that you do not. You lack comprehension, regardless of whether or not you can repeat the definition.

 

If you did have comprehension and understanding, you would not be using these tactics and conjectures to try and refute it. You would not be relying on unfalsifiable claims, speculative guesses, or things that don't even infer your conclusions are accurate as anything more than something you imagined, to counter actual evidence, logic, observation, and reason.

 

As I mentioned, this doesn't even qualify as philosophy, because it does not involve logic or inference. Even Philosophy has standards, and your arguments do not meet them.

 

It's just something you thought up. None of this comes close to the Scientific Method, and it doesn't even qualify as philosophical, because it follows no line of logic and is not inferred by anything. If you don't like the Scientific Method, then feel free to make your own method that can be reproduced and verified as effective by other independent sources.

 

You're just talking out your ass. No one is, nor should they be, taking you seriously at this point.

 

In other words...

 

Don't be mad that they haven't found the transitional links to human evolution yet. Hey, scientific method has a reaction, and a result, and in the end a proven or unproven hypothesis. Evolution does not have an end result yet, and that is okay. I understand that many believe that when the end of this 'science experiment' does come, and the missing links to prove human evolution are discovered; that it will change life as we know it, disprove the Biblical God 100% and make the notion of scientific research supreme in the human condition of life.

 

Until then, I will accept that it is speculation. See, I am open minded, unlike Kurt Wise. I will admit that humans evolved, if it is without a shadow of a doubt proven. But, that I doubt will never happen in my life time at least. \

 

Question though for you Contra. So, far, we see the gradual evolution of ape to human through a million, few million years separation via brain size increase, bipedal adaptation, etc. If the current time frame of learning, and modification of the human species, from their common ancestor is on this scale; How did we advance so much in intelligence within the last 100 years?

[ContraBardus]

I'm aware it was an attempt to be funny. I was pressing it to both open up my point, and to point out that in relation to the topic at hand most of what you 'weren't joking about' was just as stupid. Sarcasm can sometimes be lost in a text based format.

 

Yes, we have found transitional links to human evolution. In fact, there are more human links than any other. The fossil record of Human evolution is more complete than any other. We've been looking harder for them than any other transitional forms.

 

You're stating an outright lie here. It's been pointed out to you more than once, and no, it is not a subject of debate within Science. It's universally and overwhelmingly accepted, with very, very few exceptions. [Only creationists.]

 

In other words, like gravity, it is as proven as it can possibly be. In fact, there is far more evidence supporting Evolution than there is for Gravity. Especially if you factor in all the practical applications and other sciences that -would not work- without it and knowledge of how it works. It has literally been proven without a shadow of a doubt, but your personal bias has prevented you from accepting it because it doesn't mesh well with what you already believe.

 

You've got a confirmation bias regarding your faith that literally retards your ability to see the reality of the situation.

 

-Every fossil and creature, living or dead is a transitional form-. All of them. No exceptions.

 

As for your question...

 

Human intelligence has not advanced that much in the last hundred years. There's no reason to think that it's advanced at all for that matter.

 

Human -knowledge- has advanced, not our intelligence. That -isn't- the same thing.

 

You see, the explosion of technology is the result of past discoveries, past human experience, and the advancement and refinement of the Scientific method. Which was -built- on the collected knowledge of the past.

 

It is not a case of us becoming 'suddenly' more intelligent, but a result of our collected knowledge coming together and being applied at an increasingly accelerated rate over the -past several thousand years-.

 

It's not because we became demonstrably 'smarter' but because we built on the experience and knowledge of our ancestors, just as they did theirs, and so and and so fourth until you have the technological boom of today.

 

It did not 'suddenly happen' but was building up over time. Compared to technological advances of the past, it only seems as such, but it could not have happened without those advances happening first. Everything from plumbing, to metal working, to brick building, to basic control of fire, control of electricity, agriculture, and anything else you can think of that humans built, achieved, or invented in the past several thousand years contributed to this.

 

You're vastly overstating the importance or relevance of advances in the last hundred years in comparison to advances in the past. Many of them had just as much impact, were just as important, and required just as much intelligence to develop and implement.

 

It's not that we became more complex or advanced in the last hundred years, it's that the knowledge base we have to draw from has become that complex and advanced. We're still building upon it, but we didn't make the foundations, our ancestors did, and made the advances of today possible.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Yes, we have found transitional links to human evolution. In fact, there are more human links than any other. The fossil record of Human evolution is more complete than any other. We've been looking harder for them than any other transitional forms.

 

Yes, supposedly, but all fruitless until they find ALL the transitional pieces, or the smoking gun so to speak.

 

 

You've got a confirmation bias regarding your faith that literally retards your ability to see the reality of the situation.

 

Actually, I am very open minded, and usually start these discussions to open up some good ole fashion debate When is the last fundamental Christian that you have met in the middle of reading a book about evolution, written by an evolutionist? Not many.

 

-Every fossil and creature, living or dead is a transitional form-. All of them. No exceptions.

 

So the theory goes.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

Yes, we have found transitional links to human evolution. In fact, there are more human links than any other. The fossil record of Human evolution is more complete than any other. We've been looking harder for them than any other transitional forms.

 

Yes, supposedly, but all fruitless until they find ALL the transitional pieces, or the smoking gun so to speak.

 

 

You've got a confirmation bias regarding your faith that literally retards your ability to see the reality of the situation.

 

Actually, I am very open minded, and usually start these discussions to open up some good ole fashion debate When is the last fundamental Christian that you have met in the middle of reading a book about evolution, written by an evolutionist? Not many.

 

-Every fossil and creature, living or dead is a transitional form-. All of them. No exceptions.

 

So the theory goes.

 

No, you're not open minded. You simply think you are. I don't find you to be particularly hard lined, but you do have an obvious bias here, and your statements are demonstrably stupid.

 

Even if every single transitional form to account for every generation of every single species to ever exist was available, you would still claim that there were gaps between them.

 

You see, finding a new transitional form simply creates two more places for creationist morons to claim there are 'holes'. In their eyes, each new fossil actually creates -negative- evidence.

 

Yes, this is -literally- true. It is not 'the smoking gun' but rather an obvious example of the strength of the confirmation bias involved.

 

Evolution has been proven true for one simple reason. It -works-.

 

Not only does it work, but it works amazingly well. It accurately predicts future findings. It has for a hundred and fifty years now, and it's record in this is pretty much flawless.

 

Practical application also works. Once again, not only works, but works amazingly well. When the principals are applied in Scientific, and other fields, it works. It is able to accurately predict results, and provide an accurate template for further advancement. Not only in biology, but also medicine, computer sciences, and other fields.

 

The evidence supports it. Not only supports it, but it can be accurately predicted, where it is, what it will be, what it will look like, and how it differs from previous evidence.

 

You have literally been proven wrong beyond measure, yet still cling to a not only failed, but beyond reasonable doubt proven failed concept. For no other reason than it fits better with what you already believe.

 

There's no evidence to support it, it's not based on any observation, logic, or inference, and has no academic, intellectual, or even personal value. It's rather unhealthy actually.

 

 

While Evolution is revised and updated, creationism and Intelligent Design only become more unraveled and unhinged as time marches on. They become less and less valid, and more and more desperate and insipid.

 

Rather like a spider crawling under the sole of a man's shoe to avoid being swatted with his hand. It's just not an intelligent option.

 

While belief in God is debatable, not buying evolution, including human evolution, is not an issue of the same stature.

 

It's stupid. Demonstrably so. It can be proven stupid, not just by the weight of the fossil record alone, but also the mountains of other evidence that supports the fossil record. The inference of the practical application, the evidence of current biology, the fact that we -know- it's true and -understand- how it works to a staggering degree.

 

There is a far greater understanding of how and why evolution works than Gravity, Light Waves, Nuclear Bonding, and numerous other 'facts' that creationist readily accept.

 

But no. Science is only wrong about 'Evolution' for no other reason than it doesn't fit what they already believe, have no evidence for, and cannot counter the existing evidence for.

 

They think it's not true for one reason. They cannot accept that it's true, because their faith, what they believe, cannot be wrong.

 

There is no other plausible excuse for it. It's nothing but a conformation bias.

 

The evidence does not contradict it, nor does it leave a margin of even slight probability that they are correct. It completely contradicts them on every level, and is literally as close to proven fact as it is possible to get with the lone exception of mathematical certainty.

 

You are wrong beyond any doubt. If this was a court, you'd be proven guilty and awaiting sentencing. The margin of probability that you are correct is so small, it's not enough for you to fit your pinky into it, much less squeak by through.

 

[Vigile]

I don't really understand what you mean here vigile, but assume you mean something like, trying to trick you or whatnot. No.

 

I was just thinking that it may have been possible (even though it doesn't say in the Bible) that they had already had children, and after the serpent deceived them, and God made it become painful, they just changed from quadrupeds to bipedal.

 

I asked because you come across to me as a fairly smart guy, yet you referred to talking snakes and other blatantly mythological stories as if we could all accept these things as literal. Even if you yourself consider these myths literal surely you understand that we don't?

 

Lucy is my thought though. It is confirmed that she was bipedal. If Adam and Eve were quadrupedal, and were displaced from Eden and transformed into bipedal, Is it not possible that there would have been the same process as Darwin originally explained, the first step of the evolution of man would have been going from quadrupedal to bipedal. Yet, we don't have that missing link, so I still am left in wonder if it were possible that there is no missing link and man was made that way by God.

 

This is what I'm talking about. The story of Adam and Eve is such an obvious myth I just don't get how an educated adult can take it seriously. Yet you are asking us to entertain your thoughts on the idea that this myth is an accurate portrayal of the first man.

[Vixentrox]

If man was made in god's image and man was a quadruped, does that mean that god is really dog?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

It's stupid. Demonstrably so. It can be proven stupid, not just by the weight of the fossil record alone, but also the mountains of other evidence that supports the fossil record. The inference of the practical application, the evidence of current biology, the fact that we -know- it's true and -understand- how it works to a staggering degree.

 

.....

 

But no. Science is only wrong about 'Evolution' for no other reason than it doesn't fit what they already believe, have no evidence for, and cannot counter the existing evidence for.

 

They think it's not true for one reason. They cannot accept that it's true, because their faith, what they believe, cannot be wrong.

 

There is no other plausible excuse for it. It's nothing but a conformation bias.

 

The evidence does not contradict it, nor does it leave a margin of even slight probability that they are correct. It completely contradicts them on every level, and is literally as close to proven fact as it is possible to get with the lone exception of mathematical certainty.

 

You are wrong beyond any doubt. If this was a court, you'd be proven guilty and awaiting sentencing. The margin of probability that you are correct is so small, it's not enough for you to fit your pinky into it, much less squeak by through.

 

 

 

Well, your opinion is your opinion. But the fact is that there are holes, very important holes, in the fossil record ( read a little instead of watching youtube). We are talking about the existence of human beings here, not just how this and that creature became another. So, just as the devotees of 'Biblical bashing' contend that the Bible is to 'flawed' to be the direct Word from a God who we are suppose to base our very existence; so is evolution.

 

The point is that on a subjective scale, both are correct. The Bible and evolution. But, the missing pieces are headway. The Bible is not the only source of human writings about creation. Evolution has to show more than a 'pattern' for me to deny an existence of a God, and believe we all mutated into humans.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I asked because you come across to me as a fairly smart guy, yet you referred to talking snakes and other blatantly mythological stories as if we could all accept these things as literal. Even if you yourself consider these myths literal surely you understand that we don't?

 

Well Vigile, the whole book is mythological in extant, so really anyone that even speaks of Jesus, Elijah, Moses, Enoch, Adam and Eve are going into mythological, regardless of the discussion. I open these conversations for doors to research and study, and every once and a while I will come across something new to research into. Good example is Phanta's thread about Genesis and the style and meaning of the ancient writing.

 

But, I guess I can say that I can't know what is mythological and what is not because I believe in a God, that if He willed, can do whatever He likes, regardless of Earth's parameters in nature. He doesn't, and we don't see people floating up to heaven, nor animals talking to us about Obama's trip over to the Olympics; but IMO that doesn't mean that if God is God, He couldn't make that happen regardless of the laws of nature.

[NotBlinded]

Evolution has to show more than a 'pattern' for me to deny an existence of a God, and believe we all mutated into humans.

Evolution doesn't require a denial of a "God". Only certain ones...

[Abiyoyo]

 

Evolution doesn't require a denial of a "God". Only certain ones...

 

I explained this earlier. Evolution's premise is that 'life' evolved over millions of years via mutations into different creatures, represented by the transitional forms, which also are considered all remnants found, to become what we are today.

 

How can God still fit into that premise? I am genuinely curious as to why you feel that evolution and God could coexist, with humans being apart of the evolutionary process?

[NotBlinded]

 

Evolution doesn't require a denial of a "God". Only certain ones...

 

I explained this earlier. Evolution's premise is that 'life' evolved over millions of years via mutations into different creatures, represented by the transitional forms, which also are considered all remnants found, to become what we are today.

 

How can God still fit into that premise? I am genuinely curious as to why you feel that evolution and God could coexist, with humans being apart of the evolutionary process?

It's how you define God. I'm not sure who it was that put up a dictionary definition of God, but I found that funny. It's like the dictionary is just as divinly inspired as the Bible.

 

The God I believe in is the process of evolution. It's is an emergence of life itself with each form containing the remants of the forms before it leading to a hierarcy of different levels of consciousness. With each new evolving, God/the Universe sees itself more clearly.

[chefranden]

1. Evolution has to show more than a 'pattern' for me to deny an existence of a God, 2. and believe we all mutated into humans.

 

1. Religion has to show more than a hodgepodge of writings collected in a book for me to not deny the existence of a God.

 

2. I thought you studied evolution. If you did this is a pretty ignorant idea.

 

So you are not willing to accept evolution as the cause of life as we know it with out a perfect evidence trail, but you are willing to accept the existence of God without any evidence at all. Is that correct?

 

Well that is fine and dandy, but what the hell are you trying to do here? Are you still trying to convince yourself? Surely you aren't trying to convince us that Genesis is natural history with some cockamamie hypothesis about Adam and Eve being four footed and then punished into two footedness. Are you? I know you can be goofy but you can't be serious about this.

 

We do have four footed ancestors, but those ancestors weren't human.

[ContraBardus]

 

Well, your opinion is your opinion. But the fact is that there are holes, very important holes, in the fossil record ( read a little instead of watching youtube). We are talking about the existence of human beings here, not just how this and that creature became another. So, just as the devotees of 'Biblical bashing' contend that the Bible is to 'flawed' to be the direct Word from a God who we are suppose to base our very existence; so is evolution.

 

The point is that on a subjective scale, both are correct. The Bible and evolution. But, the missing pieces are headway. The Bible is not the only source of human writings about creation. Evolution has to show more than a 'pattern' for me to deny an existence of a God, and believe we all mutated into humans.

 

Except it's not 'just an opinion'. It's an evidenced based fact.

 

The imperfections in the fossil record alone are not enough to discredit the theory. In fact, the fossil record is less important evidence than the other aspects of the Theory.

 

It works, you can't deny it works, because it's used in several other fields. It's an accurate predictive model that stands up to repeated testing and verification. It's been peer reviewed, practically applied, and is the correct conclusion based on all the evidence. It all points to the same thing, Evolution is correct.

 

It's the collected evidence, not just the 'fossil record' alone.

 

For example, police come upon a murder scene. They find a stabbed body with a broken clock that says ten o'clock, a broken watch that reads nine fifty nine, a record of an emergency call at nine fifty seven, and the coroner estimates the time of death between nine fifteen and ten after ten.

 

You could claim that the evidence is in error. Maybe the clock broke before the murder, maybe the watch had been stopped sooner, maybe the coroner's report was in error.

 

However, we can reasonably say when the murder occurred. Why? Because all the evidence points to the same thing. No one piece of evidence contradicts the time of the event.

 

This is the case with Evolution. It's not one single piece of evidence, but rather the clearly indicated conclusion of -all- of it. Even without the fossil record, the evidence clearly shows that it is the case.

 

Even though there is 'direct evidence' in Biology, even if we didn't have it, it would still be a valid theory.

 

We don't need to directly observe the murder to know there was one. We don't need to recreate the events in order to figure out that there was one. We know it is the case because all the evidence clearly points to the same thing.

 

I'm not basing this on youtube videos. The videos I pointed out were just a very good collection of bullet points and an accurate representation of the actual science. I did read on the subject extensively. Both proponents of it and opposing views. The proponents have more conclusive data, evidence, and support for their claims. The opposition only has opinions, falsified evidence, unfalsifiable claims, and misrepresented information, and that's it. They have no evidence to support their views, don't offer any evidence of their own to be reviewed or tested, and simply assert that what they say is true because they believe it.

 

There is no more to it than that. The experts are overwhelmingly against this, and the only real opposition is made up of amateur opinions who don't have an understanding of the evidence or subject.

 

You claim that it is in error. That's your opinion, mine is that it's not. Neither of our opinions is relevant.

 

However, the -evidence- clearly shows that you are wrong here. It's not my opinion, nor anyone elses. It's what the -evidence- clearly indicates. Not just the fossil record, not just the inference, not just the practical application, and not just the observable evidence. The collection of all of them -all point to the same conclusion-.

 

So, no. It's not just an opinion. It's a fact, backed up by lots of evidence. Whether you like the way it sounds or not. Your opinion on the matter isn't relevant, no more than mine that it's true is. It's got nothing to do with what anyone 'thinks', it's what we -know- based on the clear indication of the collected evidence.

 

This is what creationist do not understand. It is not 'subjective' at all. The two ideas of the Bible and Evolution are not equally valid just because you want them to be. Evolution has the full support of the evidence, the Bible does not. The Biblical worldview is contradicted.

 

There is a lot more to the evidence of Evolution than just a 'pattern' in the fossil record. It's an accepted fact within Science because it has been proved correct beyond reasonable doubt. It's not mathematical certainty, but math doesn't directly apply to the subject, so it doesn't factor in. It's as certain as it can be, and not based on a single type of evidence at all. You're misrepresenting the level and quality of evidence that supports it. I think you know that you are doing it as well. You're not stupid, but you are promoting a stupid assertion and an opinion that blatantly contradicts known evidence.

 

Your opinion and need for humans to be special and above all other life is not relevant. It also contradicts all known evidence. It's just an opinion that you think that they should, and that has no bearing on the reality of the situation. The truth of the matter is, if this world was created for anything, it was created for bacteria, not humans. They are far more successful than we are by any standard of measurement.

 

This has nothing to do with 'Biblical Bashing'. It's as simple as pointing out that you're contradicting all known evidence and disregarding a principal just as proven as any Scientific fact that you don't discredit and downplay because it doesn't contradict your Biblical world view and faith.

 

Why stop with Evolution? Why not pick on some of the other 'facts'? If Evolution is wrong, why aren't gravity, chemical bonding principals, thermodynamics, radiometrics, relativity, electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and numerous other Scientific principals that are -based on the same type and quality of evidence, and are just as proven as the principals of Evolution-? Why single it out?

 

You have no trouble accepting the other theories and evidence for other theories. Why is Evolution different? It's based on the same methodology, the same kinds of evidence, the same kind of testing, and the exact same level of certainty that is correct.

 

The results of the theory of Evolution are just as present in your life as any other principals which are based on the Scientific method. It's just as important as electricity, plastic, principals of light, motion, and sound. Many things you use and don't think a second thought about owe their existence to it. The food you eat, the computer you're reading this on, the pets you may or may not own...etc.

 

Your assertions are based on ignorance, not 'open mindedness'. You certainly don't have any trouble accepting the things that resulted from the practical application of the Theory. It's just wrong because you don't like the way it sounds, and it doesn't fit with what you already believe. So you're willing to downplay the reality of the situation and act as if it's in question.

 

It's not in question. It hasn't been for quite some time. It's accepted, it works exactly as it should, is an accurate predictive model, and you've not got anything better to counter it with. Just misrepresentations, unfalsifiable claims, and outright falsehoods based on nothing more than what you'd like to think because your beliefs don't allow for the facts as they exist.

 

I explained this earlier. Evolution's premise is that 'life' evolved over millions of years via mutations into different creatures, represented by the transitional forms, which also are considered all remnants found, to become what we are today.

 

How can God still fit into that premise? I am genuinely curious as to why you feel that evolution and God could coexist, with humans being apart of the evolutionary process?

 

And you did a poor job of explaining it. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the existence of God.

 

Agnostics certainly have no trouble accepting Evolution. Why do humans need to be 'made in God's image'? They don't, there's nothing to that claim but human arrogance and primitive thought.

 

Why can't a God coexist with Evolution? Even Human Evolution. Most people today accept that if there is a God, Evolution was the methodology he used to create the diversity of life on this planet.

 

I question the existence of God, but I don't deny the possibility that he does exist. I'm not agnostic, I think the probability is low enough that the existence of such a being is very unlikely. I do accept I might be mistaken, and it doesn't worry me if I'm not right.

 

Any such being would be more concerned with how I behaved, rather than how much I believed in or worshiped him. There's no reason to think otherwise, and if he's that petty and stupid, he's not worth worshiping anyway. I certainly wouldn't want to spend the rest of eternity in the presence of an insecure bully with an abusive father complex.

 

I do deny the possibility of Christian God being correct. It's so outlandish and unlikely that it's not worth considering. He doesn't act like anything but a spoiled bad tempered human with huge insecurities and bipolar disorder with too much power.

 

I don't believe for a moment that the Bible is of anything but human origin. It's morals are poor, it's badly written, and it's ideas are far to human centered to be any sort of 'handbook' from a divine being. It's nothing but a collection of excuses and advocates submissive behaviors and mistreatment of 'outsiders'. It's a handbook for barbarians and serfs that promotes ignorance more than intelligence.

 

It's not even good Philosophy, it's moral standards are poor, and even as a metaphorical representation of History or morality, it's primitive and substandard.

 

Put simply, it's crap that was voted into it's current existence by a committee more interested in controlling the ignorant masses and politics than any sort of Universal truth.

 

Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God, not even Human evolution. It contradicts the Bible being literally true, and that should be obvious to any adult with a working brain.

[Guest Davka]

 

 

Yes, we have found transitional links to human evolution. In fact, there are more human links than any other. The fossil record of Human evolution is more complete than any other. We've been looking harder for them than any other transitional forms.

 

Yes, supposedly, but all fruitless until they find ALL the transitional pieces, or the smoking gun so to speak.

 

This is a logical impossibility. Here's why:

 

- I present you with a list of fossils. We number them according to their age, starting at 1, the hominid fossil farthest from Homo Sapiens, and ending with 10, a modern Homo Sapiens skull. My list looks like this:

 

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

 

- You say "Aha! 3 and 6 are missing!"

 

- A few years later, we find 3 and 6. I present you with my new list:

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

 

- You say "yes, but what cam between 3 and 4, can you tell me that?"

 

- Time goes on, and we find even more fossils. I present you with a new list:

 

1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5, 10

 

- You say "yes, but what comes between 4.5 and 5, can you tell me that?"

 

Do you understand? no matter how many 'transitional forms" we find (and every life form is transitional), you can always say that there is a gap, however tiny, between one form and the next. What you are asking for is a fossil of every single animal that has lived for the past 300,000 years. That would be the only way to fill every gap - to say "this animal and this animal mated, and here are their offspring . . ." IOW, a 300,000-year genealogical record in fossil form.

 

Not even the genealogies in the Bible are without gaps. Does that make them suspect?

[Abiyoyo]

It's an accepted fact within Science because it has been proved correct beyond reasonable doubt. It's not mathematical certainty, but math doesn't directly apply to the subject, so it doesn't factor in. It's as certain as it can be, and not based on a single type of evidence at all. You're misrepresenting the level and quality of evidence that supports it. I think you know that you are doing it as well. You're not stupid, but you are promoting a stupid assertion and an opinion that blatantly contradicts known evidence.

 

 

 

Then why isn't it called the Law of Evolution?