ADN

Time is our own construct, not natural law. We are tempted to use "Supernatural" as a means to explain (well, not really) anything that won't stand against scientific scrutiny, but it hardly validates it.

QUOTE(Adam_aka_Lil_P)ok, so energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms right...that's simple enough to understand...

but as to our the humanoid is today...evolved supposedly from the caveman, and from the ape or w/e...i for one believe this....but...okay, then I guess my question is....you bring up the adaptation thing....

I am both open minded, and extremely logical and rational...I have yet to have someone sufficiently explain why humans are the only species known to man, that has "evolved" and the being that they evolved from still exists...Feel free to give it a go, Lil P...

I am more than tempted to believe that humans, although the "dominant" species on the planet, cannot defy the nature of the universe....And in each instance where we have tried, we have failed (see: monogamy /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />)...So, I ask...How could we have evolved from apes...And apes still exist...??

AYHJA

^because "in some climates the apes needed to evolve to survive, but in others they didnt" but although evolutionists claim to have found missing links, they havent..

QUOTE...evolve to survive

On what continent, or climate, did this need to take place..? Correct me if I am wrong, but apes are tropical creatures, are they not..? If anything, they should have less hair than humans...

Once again, we run into choice wording...For future reference, I will again recreate was has been the staple of my argument...There is a thin line, but it is still a line no less...There is a difference between EVOLUTION and ADAPTATION...Climates are not accountable for all instances of evolution, and certainly not for one as extreme as apes to humans...Say what you want, but we are light years ahead of apes in terms of develpment...We are on this planet, at least...As sophisticated as they may be, you aren't gonna see an ape do a fuckin' killer cross over ANY time soon...

My thing is, in regards to every other instance, why should human beings be the lone exception to the rule..? In that single thought, in my eyes, all evolutionists fall short...Even over eons of time, THIS HAS HELD TRUE...No species has evolved beyond its predecesor, while the predecesor has existed...

Even reading it, it sounds insane...Distant relatives....I'll buy that...

AYHJA

Well, as I understand it, both apes and humans are descendents of a primate specie and branched out according to their physical and social needs . Saying that humans evolved from apes is oversimplifying it terribly. You know, kinda like saying that this invisible dude beyond all explanation "made" us and then calling that fact.
According to the definitoins you looked up Evolution is a "process of change in a certain direction" also, "gradual". Adaptation is described as "the process of adapting, fitting, or modifying". Wouldn't adaptation be part of the evolutionary process then?.
BTW, to state that there are no transitional fossils is simply wrong, the fact that a "missing link" has not been found perfectly preserved and complete adds absolutely no weight to a Creationist argument.

I can't honestly say that I am as much for a creationist argument, as I am against an evolutionist standpoint...

It just doesn't hold much weight...For the same principle and or logic that the theory is based on, you could say we are the decendants of all things alive...I think the point has been made that we share a similar DNA structure to fruit, and the likes...Yet, you'd never hear someone say that they believe we were spawned from bananas...

It all boils down to things that haven't been proven untrue, through study of all things...Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it simply changes form...And if that is true, and whether or not you believe that there is a collective conscious that controls that energy, evolution has no ground...

As I have said, I would be absolutely thrilled to have the theory of evolution explain how it is one primate, spawned 2 similar, but VERY different species in itself, based on social and physical needs..? No doubt, the terrain of the globe has changed MANY times, but where on earth were apes, that they became...Less evolved than humans in almost every aspect, that they could return over a period of time and be looked at as they are now, and inhabiting the same space...?

And, we are not just talking appearance...We are talking massive changes, from brain size, to strength and speed...Again, what other species has done so drastic and evolutionary process as humans and apes, and yet they both exist..?

My argument for supremacy is a bit flawed, but it is still a good scale...And you're quite right, x3n, adaptation and evolution are hand in hand, and one benefits the other...But in terms of this discussion, they are very different ideas...The design of automobiles, for example, has evolved...You don't go to the car lot, and buy a Model T...Automobiles, however cannot adapt...Not at this point anyway...You can't buy a Honda CRV, and when you have a family, and in time, that CRV develop a back seat...

Most of the arguments that I read from an evolutionist point of view say that very thing, yet there is not other instance of where this takes place...You can look at a model T, an horse drawn carriage, and a Ferrari, and say that they are indeed related, but you can't say that if a chariot never existed, that we would never have an automobile...Creationist point of views allow for a more rational argument...

As I said, it's not so much creation, as it ISN'T evolution...

AYHJA

If you can somehow muster the patience to convince me of how an automobile is classified as a living organism in accordance to biology, I'll gladly endulge that argument, otherwise, I'll keep handling the other points.
The fact that energy can only transform is in no way an argument against evolution. As a matter of fact, Creation, in any case would crumble, being that the argument is that organisms were all made from scratch, miraculously.
As far as apes being VERY different, well, not so much. Certainly not "less evolved" considering we share both the social hierarchy and family structure. when I say family structure, of course, I mean if we as "highly evolved" beings can somehow make a family unit work, which seems so effortless for chimps. I can't discuss religion or spirituality because I don't know enough of the creatures to absolutely disprove the notion that they do in fact, carry such concepts.
Agility?, speed? strenght? superior on all accounts. I would hardly categorize our differences as "drastic". That only leaves the development of our languages, which again, varies by culture and geography. The difference between European languages and dialects is huge, and a humongous leap from chimps' shrieks and squeaks, absolutely. But what about Khoisan in Sub-Saharan Africa? consisting of various clicks, each assigned a specific meaning? what about Chinese where the fact that intonation can completely change not just context, like us in he West, but the whole meaning of a word or concept?.
My argument, of course, is not that regional speech depends on their evolutionary scale, I'm simply stating that communication is achieved when we assign meaning to sound and gestures, like Mongolian throat-singing or Balinese dancers. Just because we can't understand their sounds and gestures, does not mean they are not communicating, and in my humble opinion, they seem to do a better job at it.
Hella-interesting link on the click languages and a theory of how ancient that sucker might be...
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/ar ... licks.html
To rehash your phrase...it's not so much ape's superiority, as it ISN'T humans'.

I am a scientist so I do believe in evolution. But I also believe in God and have faith.

Science and Faith are two different ways of thinking. You can't cross them.


But how about this theory I just come up with? God DID create the world- he exploded into trillions upon trillions of pieces and it all went on from there.................................

I know there are alot of flaws in that statement, but I pulled it out of the proverbial arse, so it's bound to be a bit shitty /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> .

faith and science can be crossed.

just b/c you are a scientist doesn't mean that you believe evolution. most scientists actually see the flaws in evolution and don't believe in it. they don't want to believe in a God tho b/c they don't want to have to share knowledge.

i can't post much now, but later i will post more regarding what i said

ok...here we go....

the main conflict today is theism (God created the universe) vs. naturalism (nature created everything....darwinsim/evolution)

Naturalism is the idea that nature us all that exists, that life arose from a chance collision of atoms, evolving eventually into human life as we know it today. Naturalism can include the religions of neo-paganism and New Age religions.

Naturalists say that in the beginning were the particles, along with blind, purposeless natural laws. That nature created the nature out of nothing, throught a quantum fluctuation. That nature formed our planet and the unique ability to support life.

Naturalists say that they are fair-minded and objective, implying that religious ppl are subjective and biased in favor of their personal beliefs. This is a ruse, for naturalism is as much a philosophy, a worldview, a personal belief system as any religion is.

Naturalism begins with the premises that cannot be tested empiraclly, such as the assumption that nature is "all that is or ever was or ever will be." (Carl Sagan's program Cosmos) This is not a scientific statement, for there is no conceivable way it could be tested. It is a philosophy. It is philosophy that supports the entire evolutionary enterprise, from its assertions about the beginning of life and the universe to the appearance of complex life-forms.

Whatever you take as teh starting point for your worldview does function as your religion. The dead giveaway in Sagan's case with his program, is that he capitalizes 'cosmos' which shows that he is gripped by religious fervor. He says in his books that the cosmos is his deity. He offers naturalistic substitute for traditional religion.

You need to be able to seperate genuine science from philosophy. Evolution confuses the 2, presenting as "science" waht is actually naturalistic philosophy.

The real battle is worldview vs. worldview, religion vs. religion. Nature itself is covered with His "fingerprints", marks of purpose in every area of scientific investigation.

I will post more later, but the main thing I was trying to get at is that you can't seperate religion from science...if you do, then most of the "science" we hear today, wouldn't be presented. Most of it is just the naturalistic worldview coming through trying to re-define science. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than is creationism because of the absurb assumptions made by evolutionists.

Like I said, I'll post more on this later