And they say creationism is a fable! Sorry, but no. Humans are humans. Apes are apes. Earth is earth. And it will always be so unless the creator causes it to be otherwise. It is self evident that even to call mankind apes is itself devolution. Scriptures say that the sons of God shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid. It does not say his Sons grunted, howled and shrieked in wild abandon at the prospect. All of nature abides its commands. Man though has choice and a recognition of right and wrong or good and evil. We are a wholly different thing.
The link between our primate cousins was supposed to be around 7 million years ago. australopithecus Is the beginning of the of the evolutionary branch for Hominids. We fall still are considered Great Apes, the rest Chimps, Orangutans, and Gorillas stop evolving long time ago, because they never left their current environment. As for australopithecus, they were forced to start walking upright, because their lush jungles started to change to Savanna. Australopithecus evolves too Homo Erectus, and the rest is apparently history.
Whoever thought that BS up never examined the process of evolution. Nothing in the way of major change is instant; it take at a minimum many generations or centuries. We suffer the fools, as the Mr.T of tv history says.
Thanks for the article. My only disagreement with you is that I would call it very interesting stuff. I am now eagerly awaiting the data from the Planck satellite, so they can test their theory. As the story notes, the mathematics are rather theoretical, but it does show the amazing possibilities for the study of cosmic background radiation, which had never seemed so exciting to me, before. But this does skirt my original point to you. Just because we might be part of a multi-verse, would still leave science with an unexplained origin for, then, even more matter, which populated that multiverse. This original stuff of our universe, science just ACCEPTS, ON FAITH, without being able to explain it. Back to the article, one thing that struck me was the way the scientist running this simulation, made our universe's fortuitous dynamics, allowing our development, seem less improbable (by mere chance), by speculating an infinite number of other universes, within the multiverse's eternal inflation. I have to grant the logical basis of that argument, even if I don't believe it to be the probable truth that explains our existence. If one thinks of it, her way, though, it is kind of mind-blowing, conceiving of just how special that would make everything about us. The other thing that caught my eye was that an idea that I had thought of as ridiculous, when I heard Stephen Hawking talk about it as fact, on his t.v. program How to think like a GENIUS-- that any time one makes a decision, a new universe automatically comes into being, a splinter of this one, in which the person had not made that decision, had acted differently-- was treated as more of just a science fiction idea. So it's funny, that Hawking could put forth tripe-science, and not lose any of his credibility, amongst the believers in Sciencism; yet, more credible theories, though without the official stamp of approval from conventional theoretical science-- like that of external genetic modification of our ancestors-- just get dismissed out of hand by these same, who tend to be googley-eyed at the, "brilliance," of all of Hawking's ideas. It really is indicative of a partisan or, more accurately, a denominational way of, "thinking." (I do not include you, in this bunch). Not much of a counter-argument.
Explain how the exact same protons, neutrons, and electrons, in different combinations, make completely different stuff, and thereafter group with other stuff in different quantities combinations, to make bigger stuff, and ultimately how that stuff groups and combines, and simmers, and bakes, and becomes a living cell - i.e. life????
Well you and @ChiCowboy can take a trip to the inner-city of Chicago and explain to them they are all apes and see how that works out for you.
Which kind of brings me back to my original post. The biggest problem with discussing evolution with people that are skeptical is the difficulty to understand the vastness of time. We think in lifetimes and generations. 7 million years of time to our earliest common ancestors is unimaginable. It is similar to the difficulties in fathoming the vastness of space and the universe. We think in terms of how far we can walk or drive in 30 minutes.
I really don't see how that is relevant other than your need to reduce everything to some kind of partisan issue. You do realize for the longest time the Republican party was considered the party of science, (or so I have heard).
Nothing partisan about my post. NOTHING. Ya'll can regurgitate what the scientists are now saying, which is vastly different than just 3 decades ago, and spread it as gospel for all I care but go ahead and tell the hyphenated americans they are apes and lets see what happens. For reference, in the 1980s the scientists were telling everyone that no planets existed outside our solar system. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew better than that bullshit. And just like with the 'missing link', scientists proclaim something without knowing.
Why did you pick inner city Chicago? Is that where you live? Do you want to meet and talk to us in person? Why pull out that city out of all of the cities in the US if you are not trying to make some snarky partisan point?
I think you’re completely correct about our grasp of time. I think the simplest explanation I’ve ever heard was that if you put the history of the universe into one day, modern humans would take up four seconds. If you did the same thing with the the 4,5 billion years of the earth it would look something like:
Just a couple of problems. We humans are not apes. We are members of the primate order and so are apes. But apes and humans cannot breed with each other just because they belong to the same order. So the mothers of humans are not apes. They are humans who belong to the same order as apes. That means we evolved from the same or similar creatures higher up on the taxonomic chart a long time ago. We belong to the same kingdom of animals as well but that doesn't mean we are giraffes, or fire flies or sharks which are also animals. . The other problem is the reference to dog "breeds." All dogs are members of the same species - canis lupus - whether they are a pekinese or a gray wolf. Dogs also belong to a subspecies - canis familiaris - which could evolve into a separate species from wolves but that hasn't happened yet. The differences between dog breeds aren't a product of natural evolution. They are the product of human intervention by selective breeding. It may not be possible to breed a wolf with a pekinese for physical reasons but you could breed them in vitro and get a dog of some sort. That would be impossible with an ape and a human. They aren't members of the same species. But overall, the article makes some reasonable points. Those who deny evolution deny science. Science results from observation and experimentation. Religion results only from belief in the human mind. To take belief over competent science is simply naive.
So, life, from the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons, that, mixed up differently, make up fishing sinkers?
That's true, but here's a bit of trivia most people do not know: It is not known with absolute certainty that humans are unable to breed with any other primate species. It is assumed humans likely can't, but extensive experiments on this question have never actually been carried out. In some cases different species can interbreed with each other, and sometimes even create a fertile offspring.
Let me try to explain why the, "plus millions of years," explanation is kind of a cop-out, when it is used either in lieu of proof, or as a way of dismissing even the consideration of other theories. Some creatures have existed for millions of years, and barely changed at all, like crocodiles. Other creatures have experienced AMAZING changes. Take whales, for instance. They went from being a small land animal, to becoming completely aquatic, encompassing body types from bottle-nosed dolphins, to 100-foot-long, 200-ton, filter-feeding Blue Whales. Awe-inspiring evolution. But it doesn't necessarily happen that way. So time, itself, is not an explanation. The specific changes, themselves, need to be examined, and appraised as to how any given mutation would have spread to the rest of that population. When we look at Homo sapiens-- while I'm open to considering the possibility of unaided, natural selection-- I think there are numerous developments that are hard to explain. That does not mean that there is no, "scientific," explanation; only that the onus remains on science, to find those answers. Therefore, to just assume that science will, eventually, be able to explain something, and that, when it comes, that future explanation will fall directly in line with current theory, is not a belief, based in fact. And it is a terrible reason to then not take seriously, any alternate theories to fill-in the unexplained gaps. Doing so, is blocking out ideas, based on a faith that future, new discoveries are going to conform with the way we currently think of things. This is an oxymoronic perspective on scientific, "research."
Too your first part, I don’t think anyone really uses time as it’s self as explanation too how a whale evolved from a odd looking four legged land dwelling mammal. Environment is one of the if not the biggest factors in the evolution of a species. Time is just the marker between point A and B. Look at ourselves, we came about do to climate change that turned jungle into savanna.
So far as I know. But nature tends to result in both life and fishing sinkers turning into their more baser components over time without there being a will exerted to prevent it.
Imo, creationism is an exchange of ancient and current knowledge based on observations and prophetic revelations among people via oral and written tradition. And evolution is a recent theory based on a handful of physical observations, minus the most obvious which would discredit it. Just the fact that humans operate with consciences and free choice makes them totally different from all the animal kingdom and nature itself, which functions according to natures laws to which they/it are all bound according to their species and purpose. We don't hold them to mans laws, or charge and try them in court. They cannot break our laws, or natures laws, or sin. This self evident fact alone cripples evolution as an idea. Mankind is far nearer to God and creationism than to the theory of evolution. In short, creationism is truth because it embraces the light, while evolution is fiction because it shuns the light. One may as well, like the ancient Jews, smelt a golden calf in Moses absence, as to attempt to scientifically prove, prop up, and drape evolution in the stead of God. We live, we are free, we have consciences to know good from evil, and the free agency to choose. Can we not abide and be industrious, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, as did the founders of our nation. Is it weird to be Americans?
