Posted on 10/14/2006 11:16:50 AM PDT by lizol
Europe's was a late civilization. It there a point to denying the existence for numerous others from Ur and the Sumerians on?
Anatomically modern humans first appear in Africa, and appear in the Middle East before they begin to show up in Europe.
Is there some reason this troubles you?
"The skulls are designed to demonstrate evidence of evolution. They are data points. There are millions of other data points. The theory of evolution explains that data.
There are no data points that prove how human organs such as the eye, heart, brain evolved from a single cell, nor are there data points that prove that apes evolved into humans. The apes are still here, hence they did not evolve into humans.
Also, data point don't prove anything. All they show is a skull at an erroneously estimated time. They don't show a continuous change of something evolving into another.
You're not worth my time, frankly. Sorry for being so crass. Trying to shed light into your darkened mind is just beyond me. You're on your own.
Yeah, I wish to b a creationist. Because God is a creationist.
You've got a a dead man on your side. I've got a living God on my side. You've chosen foolishly.
But that's entirely your choice.
As for me and my family, we choose the Lord and the evidence that slime to human is a fairy tale, and that "kinds" were created according to Scripture and the evidence, and the diversity we see is a result of subtle and gradual disarray of genetic information. Perfectly logica, compatible with the evidence, and compatible with Scripture.
FWIW, I used to believe Darwin and his flock. But after examining the evidence, had to conclude that Scripture is in fact right in how it describes creation.
How sad for you Darwinists to look at a sunset and not have anyone to thank for it.
I do bones, not biology. Check with some of the other folks on this point.
...nor are there data points that prove that apes evolved into humans.
There is evidence that apes and humans share a common ancestor. It comes from fossils as well as genetics. You can ignore, but that won't make it go away.
The apes are still here, hence they did not evolve into humans.
This is an absolutely idiotic statement. Look at all the dog breeds; your argument would say that because there are collies there can't be huskies! With the common ancestors of ape and human, there was a split, with one group staying in the forests and another group heading for the grasslands. We evolved from the latter group. Why should the other group have disappeared? They had it good, fat and happy in the forests with little need to evolve.
Also, data point don't prove anything. All they show is a skull at an erroneously estimated time. They don't show a continuous change of something evolving into another.
OK, here are some additional skulls which do show continuous change. Anything else I can do to help?
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
What does you religous beliefs or mine for that matter, have to do with a scientific theory?
Why do you continue with the nonsense that if you understand the theory of evolution, a scientific theory, that you cannot be religious, or believe in God?
Where does such ignorance on your part come from?
Believe what you wish, but do not claim that science is wrong, because it hurts your faith in your religion.
That's your problem, not sciences.
See -- even YOU know that the body was designed. But yet you stubbornly refuse to credit the Designer, instead giving credit to a random process proposed by a dead guy.
Yes, they are indeed designed, to demonstrate evidence of design.
Now go back and cover your ears and eyes and shout me down. But you know the truth, and the Creator will hold you accountable -- that "all this" was designed.
Knock it off or you'll face another in a long line of suspensions.
I believe the Constitution guarantees the State shall not establish a religion and attempting to do so, in the guise of ID, is against it.
I'd just add that, were Intelligent Design (or some other creationistic theory) to achieve genuine standing, on merit, and a successful scientific theory, there would be no constitutional prohibition against teaching it in public schools, even if it also was perceived to have religious implications.
The principle here is that the advancement (or inhibition) of religion by law or state policy is only prohibited where that is the primary or principle motivation and effect of the law or policy. To the extent that advancement or inhibition of religion is entirely incidental and secondary to some "valid secular purpose," there is no prohibition.
If ID really were science, there would obviously be a "valid secular purpose" to teaching it in a science classroom. The fact that ID has no standing as a theory actually utilized in scientific research is the reason that teaching it (in public schools) is unconstitutional. Ironically advocates of ID have only highlighted and exacerbated the fatality of this flaw by devoting virtually all their energies to popular and political controversialism, and few if any to scientific research.
What is your proof that evolution (a new species coming from a separate species) exists? I have seen sites promoted by the believers in 'evolution', but they always are proof of only intelligent design; that is, it's only seen in labs, but the scientist there is the intelligent designer.
Now, 'reading' the fossil record is nothing more than seeing what you want to see.
So my question: in the wild, has there ever been a proven example of a species being born that cannot mate with the generation right before it? No lab work allowed.
Yeah! No exposing the fundmentalists for the clowns they really are! /sarc
One sees what one wants to...
You mean when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia? Or earlier when Italians got beaten by Ethiopians. (See Battle of Adowa)
Ethiopia is an old Christian country with cultural roots deriving from southern Egypt and sharing faith with Coptic Christians.
|
Cradle of civilization was in the Middle (Near) East. Same place where Christian religion was born. The oldest part was Mesopotamia/Sumer (todays Iraq)
That would be pretty unusual, but probably happens sometimes. I would guess that the more typical situation, if you're talking about "sympatric" speciation (where the populations involved remain in contact) is that reduced fertility arises between populations within a species. IOW, if I as, say, a female, mate with a male from the other population, there is a lesser chance that I will have viable offspring than if I mate with a member of my own population. Under those circumstances there can arise a selective pressure to avoid and discourage such matings. This will further separate the populations genetically and greater of full infertility can emerge over time. Of course this can also happen if the populations are physically separated.
For some examples of observed, or recent and readily inferred, speciation, look here and here.
I am amazed at how well creationist can quote mine, even from a post that can be looked back at to see the original.
Completely amazing is how you can ignore the science, because your religious faith is so weak.
Science has nothing to do with your religion, nor your religious faith, or in your case, lack thereof.
If you faith was indeed strong, as you so claim, you would not be threatened by a scientific theory.
It's science, and it has nothing to say about your religious beliefs or faith.
I guess you could also mention Acts Chapter 8 in the Bible, Philip talking to the Ethiopian court official who had come up to Jerusalem to worship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.