I will still have to disagree in that part of our mastery is the creation and implementation of tools, equipment, and protective gear that allow us to not only master any other animal but also any climate as evidenced by us habitating varied climates. Also I feel strongly that along with dominion and mastery of the planet comes a great responsibility to take care of the environment and ecosystem. With it comes knowledge of our effect on the overall health of the planet. No other animal has the ability to affect the world as we have and we are at the brink of destroying it.

Lady O! You know that I real all of your posts and I'm not sure if you think I was misquoting you. If I have stated anything improperly, please let me know. The fact is that many evolutionists (i'm afraid to use that term now because Sqlserver said I was lumping - but what's a better word, people in the "know" and believe in evolution as the explanation for our existence here are evolutionists are they not?) like to point to the genetic similarities between humans and chimps. The fact is that all animals share a very significant amount of dna - that is my point.

Secondly, for the record (again) I never said that we evolved from monkey's. I have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than that. But it is true that evolution claims that we modern humans are the result of evolutionary forces that made us from the lowest of life forms (to use that term) - so I'm not sure why you guys get upset with that - that is the theory.

Lastly, the issue of 6,000 years. So many evolutionists (again - if there's a better word, tell me) like to make fun of Christians, or Creationists who believe the earth is six thousand years old. They try to make jabs at us using the 6,000 years. I honestly don't know anyone who believes that. We make a distinction between pre and anti diluvial - the world before and after the flood. I will go on record by saying that six thousand years antidiluvial is not impossible according to our understanding. I personally like ages greater than six thousand years antidiluvial. As far as the world before the flood, that amount of time is open to speculation as is the age of the universe. In light of the possibility of variation in c values I'm pretty confident making the statement that no one alive today knows how old the earth actually is. What I would like to know is how many people alive today believe that there are remnants of the prediluvial world left for us to examine. I know that there are people who believe the pyramids of egypt to be prediluvial and there is some recent scientific evidence to confirm that opinion.

Don't worry, Yeti, I didn't think that you would misquote me on purpose, but I thought I would just clear it up that I never said humans evolved from apes or monkeys, and it's a proven fact. Yes, chimpanzees and humans share a large amount of DNA, but that just shows how we could have very easily evolved in different directions and how long it takes noticeable changes in DNA to occur. It's taken tens of thousands of years for humans to develop as they currently are, and if it takes thousands of years for two organisms to have only 2% differences in their DNA through natural events in their environments, that just proves how slowly evolution occurs. Human evolution is constantly being increased by our technologies and our lifestyle. Some scientists say that we are evolving 40-50 times faster than other organisms because of this (I'll try to look for the link to the website that said this).

I'm certainly not upset about having evolved from lower life forms. But, who are we to declare an organism to be "lower" than we are? Sure, we're "intelligent" but that's only by our own standards. There's NO accurate way of measuring intelligence both within and outside of the human race. We cannot say how smart a dolphin is because we use the human standard of intelligence, and dolphins are not human. Therefore, humans and dolphins are intelligent in different ways. Yes, humans evolved from less-human organisms, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that those organisms were any "less" than we are.

We just talked about the Earth being 6,000 years old in my history class. Apparently Europeans thought they knew the exact date the Earth was created... It was supposed to be October, 20 something... I don't remember the exact date, but I know it was in October. Does the Bible even state how long ago the Earth was created? Because I've never heard of it saying that. I agree that no one knows how old the Earth is; Radiocarbon dating only gives an approximation, and religion only gives a hypothesis. Neither know for sure. Perhaps the Bible could be taken as meaning the Earth is as old as science says..? I'd like to know though, what evidence there is to support the pyramids being part of a global flood. There's a lot of evidence, not to mention physics and common sense, that says the Biblical flood could not have happened. There's not enough water in the ice caps to even remotely cover any large portions of land, let alone cover the entire Earth. ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg ). Also, the Earth is not hollow, which we can prove using sonar, so the water could not have gone there either. Granted, the pyramids are fairly close to the Mediterranean, and the Nile flooded annually. Perhaps there was a severe flood and long period of rain that was the origin of the legend?

Humans didn't evolve from "lower life forms". That's complete silliness.

Humans also weren't spontaneously created, either. THAT'S complete silliness. (don't insult other people's beliefs, WWF. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't give you the liberty of saying other's are wrong in their choices, as I just illustrated.)

You're right, we were spontaneously created. We were a planned creation by an Intelligent Creator.

Hello? I said we WEREN'T??? Did you even read my post, WWF?

I've pointed this out before, but this viewpoint seems to be a uniquely christian one, or at least I have only heard it from christians. We are not special. Humans, I mean. We are not at the "top" of the evolutionary ladder. We are a terribly weak species who have a unique social evolutionary history. Take us away from our social environment, and we are sharkfood or lion bait or scorpion dinner. We have a big brain, but unless there are a lot of us together, we aint much chop. If you want to pin an award for most successful species, look no further than cockroaches.
It would seem you have a need to see us as the big daddies of the world. Well, we aren't. I can understand that people see us able to wipe out enormous swathes of life with our destructive powers, but there isn't one thing we can do, that nature can't do bigger and better. When the Yellowstone super volcano goes up, you won't be able to say "sorry dogshead, you were right", because you'll be dead. If you live on the west coast of the USA when the faultline that divides La Palma goes, you'll have a few hours before the entire coast is wasted. There is nothing any human can do about any of these events. If ebola ever escapes into a large population, the human race will be devistated. If SARs or HN51 ever slip past controls we are royally pasted. Nothing anyone can do. I am betting you won't feel so superior when you are choking on ash, or bleeding from interesting and unusual places.

Lady O, I really admire your perseverance, but you do know it's pointless, right? He's just trying to get a rise...

Extinction level events and the like, whether due to natural calamity or from pathogens, does not change one thing as far as humans being the dominant species. Sure roaches are more resilient to disaster but they cannot hunt us or squish us.







http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/science/...ml?pagewanted=2

The following article starts off with the quote then delves into the hypothetical scenario of earth without humans and the impact of our footprint.



http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225731.100

To the original post.

There will always be questions. I don't think creation and evolution are separate at all, they obviously go hand and hand. Maybe some of theories clash, but you need one to have the other. There comes a point when you just can't answer everything... "So, we evolved from some type of primate.... coooool dude..... so now what?" "Hey man, it all started with God..... whoooooaaaah dude, thats heavy........ but how did God get there?" Its never ending. You just got to trust your gut, and sometimes your gut says(besides feed me) that you'll never know all the answers.

Id like to add a third point of view to the origin of man.

Aliens raped monkeys, and then genetically modified them to be stupid and useless.

Best explanation yet.

Personally I believe in both Creationism and Evolution. How is this possible. Easy!! The "Creator" is NOT some invisable man in the sky that has a list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do. Should you do any of them, he sends you to a place where you will be tortured and you will suffer eternally, but..... he loves you....... he loves you and he needs money!!! (quick sumation of something George Carlin said). No the creator is not the invisable man in the sky called God. The creators are Earth and the Universe through many different means.

But, I do also hold some Gods and Goddesses very dear to me as well. Some people have need for only one God, and thats awsome! But I have need of many. Essentially God does not care what you call it. Such is what I believe. But one should also be warry of God's laws being written buy the hand of man. Many religions have this corruption. Humans have their own ideas and needs for power and money.

Religion, NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION, has always been the best means for control, domination, corruption, power, and money

The magnificents of Earth and the Universe has always shaped and facilitated life and causes evolution. A great example of this is the Basilosaurus evolving into modern day Whales. This animal was originally thought to be a marine reptile (thus the name "king lizard"), but it was found to in fact be a marine mammel. Way back in the time frame of 40-34 mya (Eocene) these animals were one of the top marine preditors. They essentially looked like very thin whales (relatively), wieghing about 7-10 tons and about 50-85 feet long. In the tail end of their reign the fish stocks and other animals that the Basilosaurus fed on was dieing out due to the climate shifting colder. But krill was abundant. The Basilosaurus ultimately ended up dieing off and evolving into modern day whales. They evolved larger and larger in order to cope with the colder oceans and the diet of most whales changed to eating the abundance of krill.

This is not to say that I do not have some problems with Evolution. There are some things that don't really add up 100%:

The Andrewsarchus being related to modern day goats, sheep, deer, and whales. The Andrewsarchus are the largest land preditors ever. They look extremely canine in every aspect except two very small things. Thier claws and how they walk on their toes. They walk on their toes a little more so than canine type animals. Their claws are not cylindrical cycle shaped as canines but a bit flattened and have a groove going up the middle on the top. Much like a blood groove on some bladed weapons. Thus minutely resembleing hooves. These two very small traits is what ties them to the goat group. I could very much easier see the relation to goats, sheep, deer, and horses with the Calicothereium (Calicothere really IS related to horses), but not the Andrewsarchus. But the Andrewsarchus and is much more believeably related to whales seeing the similar basic structuring of these two animals with the Ambulocetus. The Ambulocetus looks and used to behave similarly to a crocadile or aligator. I call them fury crocs. But they did swim like otters moving their bodies undulateing virtically and not horrizontally like crocs and gators. The Ambulocetus IS within the evolutionary lineage of whales.

My next problem with evolution is the time frames of 365 mil yrs ago to 315 mya and 375 mya to 363 mya. 365 mya the Sarcopterygii started to evolve arms and legs, evolving into Tetrapoda. This process took 50 my. While the evolution of land plants comeing onto land and expanding over the entire planet only took 12 my (375-363mya). Also in this 12my time span insects just poped up out of no where. I would think that the evolution of terrestrial plants and acually giant insects (because of the very high oxygen content in the atmosphere) would be more complex forms of life to evolve. Really, evolving entirly new species of organisms (tons of them) should not take 12mys. As opposed to just growing arms and legs over 50mys.

UH OH!!! I just looked again and saw my mistake!! I guess I was too tried the other day when I read about 375mya-363mya. It's actually 475mya-363mya. So it's not just 12my, it's actually a 112my time span. OK my problem is gone now with that section of time and evolution!! Sorry gang!!

Guess that just leaves the Andrewsarchus being related to goats.

Certain groups of Christians most certainly do believe this. YEC and the myriad of followers it has. You know them. The ones looking for dinosaur evidence in the Bible. The ones that cringe at the mention of any dating method.

Have you or will you ever accept that this is your belief?

That is an extremely simplistic way of looking at humans role in this world. One roach can do you no harm, true; have you thought what would happen if the roach population were to get out of control?
"Cockroach infestations pose two dangers. The first is the danger of spreading disease and causing food poisoning when they defecate on our food. The second is the danger of causing allergy attacks in sensitive people. Cockroach allergies are common."
If there was no clean food, where would we be. And roaches are a relatively harmless insect. The black death was carried by fleas, and decimated a third of Europe's population. If the chemical balance of the oceans tips too far into acidity, algal blooms could concievably destroy the food chain. Death by algae, anyone? There are literlally millions of microbial lifeforms that could end humanities "dominant" role.
That article also speaks of our ability to carry information across generations, and points out that no other species does this. I would say two things to that. First, our ability to do this is entirely dependant on our modern societies remaining the way they are - for example libraries, schools, the internet; these are all mechanisms by which we pass knowledge around and down the generations. None of these institutions would survive any catastrophic event; they don't even tend to survive wars - just look at Iraq and afganistan. Sure, if the hostilities ever stop, the rest of the world will help them rebuild, but you can imagine the impact of the Mega Tsunami on the west coast of the USA might disincline that country to help rebuild another when they are trying to climb out of a disaster of that scale. Simply put, if we lose our infrastructure, we lose our ability to educate. If we lose our ability to educate, in one generation we have no doctors, in two generations we are right back to the dark ages and you would not survive more than 25 years, if that. Our population world wide would plummet, disease and war would pretty much take what was left, and within 5 generations humans would be on the brink of extinction.
Putting it another way, the only way you could actually say we were the dominant species, would be to ensure that life stays exactly as it is. And you cannot do that. Our society will fall, as surely as the sun rises.

Personally I refuse to believe that humans, AS THEY ARE NOW, can possibly survive an extintion level event. 99.99% of the human population has grown so astoundingly lazy and abusively dependant on their comfy little coutches, computers, plumbing, cars, money, and eletricity. It's exceptionally pathecit really. If the human race was cast back into the stone age over night. Those who did not die in the actual cataclysm, would commit sucide, and those left over would go to war immediatly over the surviving housing, food, and water sources. Then you have the 0.01%'ers. Those who know how to and are tough enough to survive through anything. Those are the poeple that knows what is to come ahead of time and are confident in their preparations. They are also the ones that the 99.99% will not listen to and think that they are crazy.

Life does not have to stay as it is. See the the post below.



The 99.9 % would die and smart country folk who can live off the land and the survivalist type would thrive. If there are any survivors left to procreate after an ELE then humanity would be fragile but might have every chance at rebounding.

Well said Clovis. Thus the reason why I said "AS THEY ARE NOW".

Well said indeed!

Very nice name BTW. I have been studying the Clovis people for about 2 weeks now.

Thanks for that, I never paid too much attention to chimps before. I knew they imitated but not so much on the active teaching.

Oh yes. I have another idea. What if they are both equally real. Its like this. First, someone creates them, then they start to evolve in accordance to what they need.

Unless you can provide any evidence of a creator, creationism is not and will never be science. So no it is not equal. What you have described theistic evolution.

This coming from someone who claims things like "abiogenesis" are scientific.

Yes, so does the vast majority of the scientific world. What's your point?


By the way, your prophecy failed. May has come and there has been nothing to suggest a huge increase in world wide Christianity.

I am only putting a point forward. I agree that I don't know much about either theories to see to much about them.

But I want to question your own theory about evolution. How did science come out with the fact that evolution created mankind? How did science prove that it was evolution that created the first living organism, a cell, at the beginning of time?

Science thrives on proof. But I feel that there is no evidence of evolution creating the first living organism either. It seems like a hypothesis.

And, since the post has put creation and evolution as debatable, I will presume that we are discussing about the first living organism being brought to life instead of how monkeys became humans.

There is a difference between evolution and abiogenisis - evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population (adaptation) and abiogenisis deals with the origin of life. Two very different subjects.

A place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenisis

Yes I know it is. But the thread is discussing it this way is it not? Creation and evolution is put together. So I presumed that the thread means for it to be discussed about the beginning of life, when life started. Because creation is suggesting it. And evolution is being put into the picture too.

And like since when did I ask about abiogenisis?

Like, since you said that this was discussing the origin of life, which is abiogenisis, not evolution. Like, see your above statement, see where it says "life started?"

Oh yes I see. I'm really sorry. Because I just assumed. Very limited knowlegde in this field of study and all that.