Was the first man a baby or an adult?

[atinymonkey]

How much common sense and logic does it take to understand that:

............blarrrrgg..........

It takes none whatsoever. Which is why you think it's true.

[herme3]

Since humans evolved, the answer has to be that the first human started as a baby, given birth to and taken care of by parents who were not-quite-human. Just as the the first chicken egg was laid by something that was not-quite-a-chicken.

 

That is your opinion, not a scientific fact. I'm not saying that evolution can't be true, but there is no proof. Also, there is no proof that says creationism is false. There are many more Christians in this world than people who believe monkeys started their family tree.

[AzurePhoenix]

What do you mean when you say there is no proof? I guess we just imagined all that fossil record stuff? Everything we know about genetics and mutation is just one really big hoax?

[Moopy]

so all those higly paid archeologists and thousands of them working different ways on the same things are secretly exchanging knowledge with each other to tell everyone the same age of the fossils and are just telling plain bullsh*t to the world to keep the world stupid?

 

that sounds ALLOT more like something the christian church would do

 

science is not about keeping people dumb..but its about understanding and i HIGHLY doubt that they would do crap like that just to get rich.

 

christian religion is 2000 years old and therefor you are relying on discoveries made 2000 years ago when people DIDNT KNOW what we know now!

they said the earth was the only planet and the stars are circling around it for crying out loud!!!

 

now we are more advanced and our scientists are NOT stupid and i bet they are at least a thousand times more understanding of the way things work than the bible writers.

 

its seriously VERY hard and damn shaming for me to read that people actually BELIEVE the bible about the dinosaurs (actually i think its sad people believe the bible at all..but bck to subject) ..

keep in mind that that book was written by a man who just wasnt as advanced in thought as our scientists.

that is also how the concept of a god got created...people didnt know how or why..so they make a superbeing the explanation

nowadays...we have better explanations and the same with dinosaurs

[Moopy]

That is your opinion, not a scientific fact. I'm not saying that evolution can't be true, but there is no proof. Also, there is no proof that says creationism is false. There are many more Christians in this world than people who believe monkeys started their family tree.

 

evolution is already a proven fact i believe.

plenty evidence creationism is NOT possible.

the world is NOT devided by 2 theories..one stating god and one stating monkeys,

christians is NOT the only religion

and personally..i do not believe that monkeys started the human race but rather humans themselves...they just didnt look like us back then..but as living habits changed...we adapted to the new lifestyles and this is how we are how we are.

(a polar wolf has lots of hair so he can survive the cold...were he to live in a warmer temperature...his offspring would lose hair to survive the heat..this is the same with humans...they were perhaps hairy...but we went living somewhere else and we lost the hair)

or perhaps theres some other explanation...but dont you think the monkey theory at least sounds a bit better than "man was created with a flash..lost a rib and so woman was created...and they got children and through unknown ways..(in my idea..incest) ..those children got children and so on and so on

[The Spith]

Do you think that any single individual is privileged to be the ancestor of all humans after ten thousand years from now or even a million years from now?

*

What makes you think that ten thousand years in the past, a single human or even a single tribe, was in any way privileged for becoming our modern ancestor!

 

In Richard Dawkin's book "The Ancestor's Tale" he discusses how this happens. If you think about it, as long as you have one surviving descendant in several million years, then the chances are you will have thousands because along the way many of your descendants will go on to produce more than one child.

 

Go forward far enough in time and you will reach a point where all survivng humans will be your descendants

[Phi for All]

That is your opinion, not a scientific fact.

Based on evolution, this has been witnessed in other species many times.

I'm not saying that evolution can't be true, but there is no proof.

That is where you're wrong. There are many things that evolution doesn't tell us and can't answer, but the fact that evolution exists and is true IS a scientific fact. It has been observed over and over in verified experiments. It requires no "belief" the way creationism does.

 

I refer you now to this excellent thread where some of the myths you hold dear can be cleared up. No hocus pocus, no beliefs, just cold hard facts.

[herme3]

What do you mean when you say there is no proof? I guess we just imagined all that fossil record stuff? Everything we know about genetics and mutation is just one really big hoax?

 

A man could have been crippled, and had a bent back. That doesn't mean he was half man, and half monkey.

 

christian religion is 2000 years old and therefor you are relying on discoveries made 2000 years ago when people DIDNT KNOW what we know now! they said the earth was the only planet and the stars are circling around it for crying out loud!!!

 

I don't think you know very much about the Christian religion and The Bible. It never said that. It also never said the Earth was flat. A lot of this was invented by the Catholic Church, and has nothing to do with The Bible and what most Christians believe.

 

keep in mind that that book was written by a man who just wasnt as advanced in thought as our scientists.

that is also how the concept of a god got created...people didnt know how or why..so they make a superbeing the explanation

nowadays...we have better explanations and the same with dinosaurs

 

First of all' date=' The Bible was not written by one man. It was written by many men. Also, people didn't create God. God created people. Christians already know the answers, it is the evolutionists that are struggling to find answers.

 

plenty evidence creationism is NOT possible.

 

I would like you to name any of the evidence. It is probably the same stuff that the first evolutionists said. Christians have already proven this is incorrect.

 

Read this: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

 

Also read this: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/life-complexity.html

[buzsaw]

What do you mean when you say there is no proof? I guess we just imagined all that fossil record stuff? Everything we know about genetics and mutation is just one really big hoax?

 

Uh,...... mmm.......well, maybe not what one would say is a deliberate hoax, but methinks ye'all need to factor in more stuff to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[buzsaw]

First of all, The Bible was not written by one man. It was written by many men. Also, people didn't create God. God created people. Christians already know the answers, it is the evolutionists that are struggling to find answers.

 

Right on, Herme. The Bible was written by about 40 different people, ranging from shepards to kings, and over roughly a 1400 year period, so unlike the Book of Mormon or the Quran, it's not based on the credibility of one man. It is indeed a credible book of the history of the world from beginning to end, the end times being prophesied and so far right on target.

[Phi for All]

A man could have been crippled, and had a bent back. That doesn't mean he was half man, and half monkey.

Evolution doesn't produce half man/half monkeys. This is entirely your creation.

A lot of this was invented by the Catholic Church, and has nothing to do with The Bible and what most Christians believe.

I don't think you know very much about the Christian religion, which was created by what is now the Catholic Church. The majority of Christians are, in fact, Catholic, so you're also wrong about what most Christians believe.

Christians already know the answers, it is the evolutionists that are struggling to find answers.

Already knowing the answer makes evidence tainted by the scientific method. And while there is no struggle to find the answer in science, science alone seems content to retain scepticism while observing experiemt after experiment prove that evolution is the answer. You will, of course, note that evolution does NOT tell us there is no God, though most creationists are under the misconception that it does.

[AzurePhoenix]

methinks ye'all need to factor in more stuff to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Methinks you need to understand that evolution is much more simple than you seem to imagine. What we don't understand in the origin of life. Evolution itself is better understood than countless astronomical theories, with literally tons of evidence, and it's all at our fingertips, yet you don't see many people attacking blackholes or our place in the universe from a religious standpoint (not as much as in past centuries at least).

 

A man could have been crippled, and had a bent back. That doesn't mean he was half man, and half monkey.

Those sentences alone should be enough to drive a paleontologist to commit suicide.

[AzurePhoenix]

I don't think you know very much about the Christian religion and The Bible. It never said that. It also never said the Earth was flat.

He meant that the Bible was written during a time / times when people had scarcely any understanding of the workings and form of the natural world.

 

First of all, The Bible was not written by one man. It was written by many men.

And exists in many versions.

 

I would like you to name any of the evidence. It is probably the same stuff that the first evolutionists said. Christians have already proven this is incorrect

That's just a blatant "non-truth" encased in a few layers of total B.S. Show us your oh-so conclusive anti-evidence. Be warned, if it's another fossilized sandal, my spirit is going to haunt you till the day you die, and I'll be wielding a whisk.

[JPQuiceno]

/on offtopic

 

It has come to my attention that the fact that many atheist and scientist like me are seeing in the arguemnet in creationist. The whole "God Of The Gaps" arguement logic.

 

Us scientist have no personal vendetta against religion, people, or such.

 

We see the world, use scientific methods, and rational thinking and logic, to come to the best conlclusion that us as a whole scientific communtiy agree that is the best explanation for a certain phenomenom.

 

Now, in my opinion, I see that most creationist have this problem with the "God of the gaps".

 

For example, I say that God doesnt exist, and that we don't need religion or the bible to explain anything around us.

 

Then a creationist say, "Jeez, can you actually tell me that you think all of this came out of nowhere, that little sally's toes move and that your eyes are so perfectly tuned! Or that the earth is perfectly far away from the sun, and if it were closer, it would not allow human life on earth."

 

Then, I proceed to explain how these things are possible. Then he proceeds to change the subject, and for example, says, "well what about gravity, and how its perfectly balanced." As before, I proceed to answer his question, and he proceeds to switch subjects.

 

Creationist see the world around them, and instead of trying to use scientifc method, to actually see how things work, they proceed to try to explain the universe through the "Biblical Lens", or in other words, using gods explanation of the universes creation.

 

This was kinda off topic, put just wanted to point it out.

 

/off offtopic

 

Now to say this. I know that analogies and rhetorics and things of such, dont prove anything, but for the fun of it I will give an example.

 

I have heard a lot of creationist say this old analogy. Im modifying it a bit and turning and using it against them.

 

Here it goes:

 

If I invite you to my home. And you come over and see a beautiful painting hanging on the wall, and I am also suprised, because I had never seen it there before.

 

We walk up to the painting, and see its beauty, intricate workings of detail, color, texture, vividness. Now, we look down and see 2 notes. Each has a word on it. One says, Creation, the other says science. I look at you and say, "How the heck did this painting get here?", you proceed to say, "Beats me". We pick up the creation note, and it says the following " You are seeing this painting on this wall. It lays here, because, Micaelangelo, the great paint, 500 years ago, decreed its creation, and it was done. It is here in front of you because he gave the word to have it done, and it is."

 

Now, you pick up the Science note, and it reads " You are here in this living room, looking at this painting. It lays here, because while you went to get the door a man came in and hanged it up. He was at home for 1 week painting, spending countless hours painting, giving detail, with colors he bought at the local store, with his credit card, which is based off funds he worked for. When you came back he was gone, and the painting was there".

 

Now out of the 2, which would you think is the best and logical eplanation for the painting? The first, the creation note, the one saying that some 1000 year old man said it would appear here, in the year 2005, and that it just happned. No explanation. Defying laws and logic.

 

Or the second note, the science note. The one that tell you at what time, and how it was placed in your home. Who created it, how he did, and how he got the materials to create the painting, and with what skills. Not defying laws of physics, logic, or anything. Perfectly normal. Not requiring you to LIE to yourself and say that it magically apeared there.

 

It seems to me IMHO, that 2 is the logical choice, for someone that doesnt ignore their logic.

 

Now the case is, why when it comes to the bible, people don't see the illogical arguements and statements.

 

Please, in all honesty, any creationist tell me its easier to belive, that this earth just was created out of nothing, by something we have never seen, that defys logic (which we use every day to make logical decisions like to eat, sleep, not kill our human mates, to go to work and etc) instead of knowing and beliveing that the explanations given by science, through scientific methods, actual phyiscal proof and evidences, WHICH DONT defy logic and laws, is harder to believe. Even if you are not a scientist with a Ph.D in biology, it seems much more sense to me, to believe that science is the answer, not some bed time story (pun intended).

 

Just my opinion, thanks for your time.

[jazzoff]

Hmmm....this is no different from the chicken-and-egg question. The answer is, I guess, we will probably never know. Because it's like, if it's a baby, then who produced the baby? Definitely an adult! But where does the adult come from? I think most experts in the area of evolution (I don't know what specific area) do not really bother about this. I am not sure, this is pnly my opinion.

[Mokele]

Why should only the dinosaur reptiles exclusively die out, every last one,, leaving their cousins the belly crawling reptiles surviving, nearly all of them? Maybe there's another explanation, like they were the Biblical pre-cursed reptile serpents which were not belly crawlers, but were cursed of God to have their descendendents become belly crawlers?

 

Congratulations, your "opinion" shows such collosal ignorance of the reptilian fossil record as to be barely worth considering. FYI: we have fossils of "belly crawling" reptiles for long, long before even the dinosaurs, and snakes existed for 60 million years *before* dinosaurs died.

 

Oh, and please explain crocodilians and large lizards, which display semi-erect gaits, and chameleons, which display a *fully* erect gait.

 

2. There were no eye witnesses 256 million years ago, nor even 20,000 years ago.

 

That's why we use something called "evidence". I suggest you become familiar with it, as it spells out precisely how wrong you are.

 

3. It's all based on theory with the credibility of dating methods in question by some scientists.

 

Prove it. Show me a single *PEER-REVEIWED* journal article that questions the validity of all radiometric dating.

 

Oh, that's right, you're lying, so you can't. My bad.

 

4. The preflood Biblical atmospheric conditions would have been such that atmospheric conditions likely would produce far different date readings than today's atmospheric conditions show.

 

Unfounded assumptions and post-hoc rationalizations to save a doomed belief, anyone?

 

5. The fossil record and other archeological data can be interpreted differently, depending on one's views.

 

Only within a very, very narrow range of views. For instance, one can interpret the fossil record of snakes as showing aquatic or fossorial ancestry, but there is *NO* way that you can argue they were not descended from a varanoid lizard. The evidence permits no other explanation.

 

I'm not saying that evolution can't be true, but there is no proof.

 

We've observed it. That is proof. I win.

 

There are many more Christians in this world than people who believe monkeys started their family tree.

 

Wrong. Christians are a minority compared to more sensible religions like Buddhism, which have no problem with evolution.

 

Also, popularity is not validity. Most people believe snakes are slimy, but they are simply wrong.

 

A man could have been crippled, and had a bent back. That doesn't mean he was half man, and half monkey.

 

As you probably *don't* know, due to your evident ignorance of biology, there are reliable and easy ways of diagnosing pathological conditions from skeletal remains. In fact, paleopathology is a burgeoning field. We can *easily* tell the difference between deformity and adaptation.

 

Next stupid and ill-informed creationist claim...

 

Christians already know the answers, it is the evolutionists that are struggling to find answers.

 

...because we find the *right* answers, rather than just making them up out of thin air.

 

If you are so hostile and ignorant towards science, why are you here?

 

I would like you to name any of the evidence. It is probably the same stuff that the first evolutionists said. Christians have already proven this is incorrect.

 

Look up the recent studies of cactus-dwelling fruit flies in the american southwest. Oh, look, it's direct, un-arguable observation of evolution in action, including speciation and morphological changes.

 

Unlike creationism, science has actually amassed 150 years of data that supports evolution. That data has increased exponentially since we figured out DNA and genetics, allowing us to quantifiably observe evolution. In contrast, it's creationists that recycle 150 year old arguements that have been disproven time and again.

 

Try actually learning something about science and biology, then come back, kid.

 

Oh, and both of your URLs are so childish that I could have refuted them when I was 10 years old, let alone now. More proof that creationists are gullible and have sub-normal intelligence.

 

It is indeed a credible book of the history of the world from beginning to end, the end times being prophesied and so far right on target.

 

Given that we know for *certain* that genesis is not literally true (see this entire thread), I'd say that's bullshit, like all of your posts.

 

------------------

 

Ok, I'm sick of this. Creationists, try actually opening a goddamn biology textbook. Your arguements are *obviously* wrong to anyone with an understanding of the subject matter, and your painful lack of knowledge is obvious in every post.

 

Mokele

[buzsaw]

Evolution doesn't produce half man/half monkeys. This is entirely your creation.

I don't think you know very much about the Christian religion' date=' which was created by what is now the Catholic Church. The majority of Christians are, in fact, Catholic, so you're also wrong about what most Christians believe.[/quote']

 

1. The Roman Catholic sector of Christianity didn't officially begin until about 300 AD.

2. I believe in the US only about 23 percent of the US population was Roman Catholic as of 1998, and that includes all who were baptized Catholic, many of who are not active in the religion.

 

You will, of course, note that evolution does NOT tell us there is no God, though most creationists are under the misconception that it does.

 

Evolution pretty much denies the Biblical creator god, Jehovah as per the Biblical record, the existing one who, according to that record was suppose to have created and designed that which exists. I don't see how you can get around that. In effect, the evolutionist's god is some pseudo god who did nothing and continues to do nothing. LOL!

[buzsaw]

Congratulations, your "opinion" shows such collosal ignorance of the reptilian fossil record as to be barely worth considering. FYI: we have fossils of "belly crawling" reptiles for long, long before even the dinosaurs, and snakes existed for 60 million years *before* dinosaurs died.

 

But my point was the problem of all the dinosaurs dying off, every last one, while nearly all of the rest belly crawler reptiles survived. What's wrong with that picture? I believe my hypothesis provides a viable answer.

 

Oh, and please explain crocodilians and large lizards, which display semi-erect gaits, and chameleons, which display a *fully* erect gait.

 

These are still basically belly crawlers. There's flukes in many areas of creation such as the flying squirrels.

 

That's why we use something called "evidence". I suggest you become familiar with it, as it spells out precisely how wrong you are.

 

Evidently there exists a problem with mainstream's theory on this which I'm attempting to deal with here.

 

Prove it. Show me a single *PEER-REVEIWED* journal article that questions the validity of all radiometric dating.

 

Show me a single peer-reviewed journal article that would even consider factoring in anything in the Biblical historical record as a possibility. LOL!

 

Oh, that's right, you're lying, so you can't. My bad.

 

Isn't it a tad against forum guidelines, accusing a fellow member of lying without sufficient evidence that there was intent to lie? It is indeed meanspirited for you to do so.

[herme3]

1. The Roman Catholic sector of Christianity didn't officially begin until about 300 AD.

2. I believe in the US only about 23 percent of the US population was Roman Catholic as of 1998' date=' and that includes all who were baptized Catholic, many of who are not active in the religion.

 

Evolution pretty much denies the Biblical creator god, Jehovah as per the Biblical record, the existing one who, according to that record was suppose to have created and designed that which exists. I don't see how you can get around that. In effect, the evolutionist's god is some pseudo god who did nothing and continues to do nothing. LOL![/quote']

 

Thank you, Buzsaw. You explained everything perfectly. Although evolutionists might believe in a god, it is definitely not the same God that Christians believe.

[Phi for All]

1. The Roman Catholic sector of Christianity didn't officially begin until about 300 AD.

363 A.D. at the Council of Laodicea to be exact, where the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized. What does this have to do with what most Christians believe? Are you denying that what is now the Catholic Church was the first recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity?

2. I believe in the US only about 23 percent of the US population was Roman Catholic as of 1998, and that includes all who were baptized Catholic, many of who are not active in the religion.

Are the US Christians the only ones who count? And must you be active in your religion to be counted? How active?

 

2.1 billion Christians in the world, 1.1 billion are Catholics. MOST Christians are Catholics. Do you deny the math?

Evolution pretty much denies the Biblical creator god, Jehovah as per the Biblical record, the existing one who, according to that record was suppose to have created and designed that which exists. I don't see how you can get around that.

Evolution denies nothing with regards to any god. What is denied by evolution is a 6-day world creation. MOST Christians have no problem admitting that when Genesis says "day", it could refer to vast periods of time before the world as we know it was formed. Evolution does not, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, deny them this. Jehovah can still be the creator, and evolutionists may simply assume He's more patient than you give Him credit for.

[buzsaw]

 

Ok' date=' I'm sick of this. Creationists, try actually opening a goddamn biology textbook. Your arguements are *obviously* wrong to anyone with an understanding of the subject matter, and your painful lack of knowledge is obvious in every post.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

This nasty meanspirited signature of yours, Mokele, is imo, unduly demeaning and insultive. Why don't you talk to someone else, more of your liking and leave Biblicalists alone if we irritate you to this degree?

[Phi for All]

Why don't you talk to someone else, more of your liking and leave Biblicalists alone if we irritate you to this degree?

Probably because you're in Mokele's house now, brother. Did you forget this was Evolution / Morphology / Exobiology and not Philosophy / Religion?

[joerdz]

Thank you, Buzsaw. You explained everything perfectly. Although evolutionists might believe in a god, it is definitely not the same God that Christians believe.

 

I am not too knowledgeable of 'gods of the world'. I consider myself and evolutionist. The christian god wouldnt fit. If I was to believe in a god, i would pick the deist god.

[herme3]

363 A.D. at the Council of Laodicea to be exact, where the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized. What does this have to do with what most Christians believe? Are you denying that what is now the Catholic Church was the first recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity?

 

I deny that. Christianity started while Jesus was still alive. He had a large number of supporters and they were the first Christians.

 

Evolution denies nothing with regards to any god. What is denied by evolution is a 6-day world creation. MOST Christians have no problem admitting that when Genesis says "day", it could refer to vast periods of time before the world as we know it was formed. Evolution does not, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, deny them this. Jehovah can still be the creator, and evolutionists may simply assume He's more patient than you give Him credit for.

 

Your version of evolution is in conflict with The Bible because The Bible says man was created from dust by God. The Bible says that all the animals, fish, etc. were created separately. Your version of evolution says that man evolved from these animals, and was not created separately.

[buzsaw]

363 A.D. at the Council of Laodicea to be exact, where the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized. What does this have to do with what most Christians believe? Are you denying that what is now the Catholic Church was the first recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity?

 

Let's recap your original statement regarding this, Phi.

I don't think you know very much about the Christian religion, which was created by what is now the Catholic Church.

 

The Christian religion was, in fact officially created by Jesus the christ of Christianity and his apostles, was it not? We read in the NT that as many as were saved, were added (to the church) and we also read in the NT that they were first called Christians at Antiock I'm going by memory and can look up the references if you'd like. This was all in the first century!

 

Are the US Christians the only ones who count? And must you be active in your religion to be counted? How active?

 

1. Many protestant churches purge those from their rolls who become inactive and many baptized adherants such as myself are not even members of specific churches.

2. No, US Christians aren't the only ones who count, but I was making this observation since this is our nation, a significant one. I'm aware that in some nations the majority is Catholic.

 

2.1 billion Christians in the world, 1.1 billion are Catholics. MOST Christians are Catholics. Do you deny the math?

 

Ok, so you're right by a tiny majority. It looks like a more accurate assessment would be that roughly half are RC.

 

Evolution denies nothing with regards to any god. What is denied by evolution is a 6-day world creation. MOST Christians have no problem admitting that when Genesis says "day", it could refer to vast periods of time before the world as we know it was formed. Evolution does not, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, deny them this. Jehovah can still be the creator, and evolutionists may simply assume He's more patient than you give Him credit for.

 

Can you name one thing that evolutionists credit Jehovah god of the Bible with having anything to do with designing or creating? My understanding is that the evolutionist adheres strictly to random mutation (rm) and natural selection (ns). Right? What role does this leave Jehovah god of the Biblical record with in creation?