• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
So you are saying that it was not taught in textbooks that Neanderthals were inferior in intelligence to ?? What do you think this means?
"Villa and Roebroeks scrutinized nearly a dozen common explanations for Neanderthal extinction that rely largely on the notion that the Neanderthals were inferior to anatomically modern humans. These include the hypotheses that Neanderthals did not use complex, symbolic communication; that they were less efficient hunters who had inferior weapons;"Neanderthals were not inferior to modern humans, study finds
Do you think it meant that scientists generally thought the Neanderthals were equal in intelligence to "anatomically modern humans"?
Just in case, let's look again at another source: (presumably not a "creationist" site):
"No one knows exactly why Neanderthals went extinct and why Homo sapiens survived. Some scholars theorize that gradual or dramatic climate change led them to their demise, while others blame dietary deficiencies. Some theorize that humans killed the Neanderthals. Until recently the hypothesis that Neanderthals didn't go extinct but simply interbred with humans until they were absorbed into our species was popular." Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
(Continual speculation.)
Maybe the following isn't true? What do you think?
"Many scientists had postulated that Neanderthals were too stupid, clumsy and incompetent to survive a competition with the smart and inventive modern humans who invaded their territory."
The question: do you believe that MANY SCIENTISTS POSTULATED THAT NEANDERTHALS WERE TOO STUPID, CLUMSY, etc. to survive?? I didn't ask you if you believe that Neanderthals were too stupid, but if you believe that many scientists postulated this description of Neanderthals, but now may postulate something else?

I am saying that the intelligent of Neanderthals was never supported with any evidence in the past. Yes it was taught wrong if that was stated because there was no evidence to make those claims. But here is the beauty of science. Views change as evidence is accumulated and ideas questioned. That is the way science works.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First, I am not speaking for Dan just respecting his Christian belief and appreciating his support for evolution. Evolution is the clear explanation for life on earth and can be accepted by anyone of any faith. The truth is we don't know exactly what Jesus thought other than from what was written after his death. Jesus did not write anything down and all was written by others who were not even his disciples despite the names connected with the texts. From all I have read Jesus did not express any opinion about how live came about on earth but was more concerned about how humans treated each other. I just do not see any reason why someone who considers themselves Christian cannot accept evolution. If you believe the world was created by god then there is no reason to not to learn from gods creation. The world is telling us that live evolved no matter what your religion is.
To learn from God's creation means that God is the creator. The world tells me that God is the Creator, that He caused life to appear on the earth, that He is the originator of human life, and animal and p
Interesting how you have completely hijacked this thread and turned into you interrogation and condemnation of a Christian.

Do you not think it is disingenuous to stop responding to my posts simply because I asked you which church you followed, while I have been responding to you candidly? Because I missed a question and did not respond to it, you filled in my answer for me and have been calling me out on that. Look at the fruit that you are showing here.

This is another reveal for your understanding of science. Theories are not sets of beliefs without logical and evidential support that can either be believed on faith or rejected on faith. Accepting a theory is not based on faith. They require intellectual effort and honesty to understand them.

What you are doing is turning the discussion into a judgement of me. It assumes that you have perfect understanding and are following the perfect path. It assumes that the Bible is infallible. So how do you reconcile the Bible with the facts that have been observed that are contradictory to that. Your answer seems to be to alter the explanations arbitrarily and invalidly so they fit with the Bible. Ignore the facts and explanations, continuing on as if they do not exist. Or twist the science into a religion that it is not so that it can be rejected without any intellectual effort. And lastly, condemn and judge Christians that do understand and accept science with a wave of your hand by elevating the Bible to an idol.

How is any of that good fruit?

The bottom line here is that you have chosen a doctrine that is in conflict with the evidence of nature and understanding based on that. Your efforts here look less like an attempt to understand science, but to find ways to dismiss it. But that dismissal is going to be based on your doctrinal choices and not on any scientific basis. You are free to do that, but taking that way is not a valid argument against science and is no challenge to science.
I am not hijacking the thread. You and Dan are. I was asking Dan a question as to the validity of his belief in one thing and then in direct contradiction, another. You're the one stoking up a word storm. Jesus spoke of creation, not evolution, as to how life came about, I am not going to discuss much more about that point here. But yes, I did and do wonder how a person claims to be a Christian and then says he believes in evolution. Christ spoke of creation.
To Dan...Jesus spoke of a Creator. The Bible says he came from Adam. Jesus spoke of Noah. Do you believe Jesus or do you believe he just didn't know the truth and so followed and taught myths? Answer that and could be the discussion is over.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am saying that the intelligent of Neanderthals was never supported with any evidence in the past. Yes it was taught wrong if that was stated because there was no evidence to make those claims. But here is the beauty of science. Views change as evidence is accumulated and ideas questioned. That is the way science works.
There's no real evidence to support fish emerging into landcrawlers. Or bacteria growing into forms that become trees. No recordings, no written documents, no visual aids insofar as the burgeoning changes. In fact, the idea that writing began after how many years of those smart neanderthals interbred is absurd. How many years were the now- considered smart neanderthals said to be on the earth before the homo sapiens emerged? Only surmises about it all coming about by evolution.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What do you think you will achieve with this line of questioning? Do you want to drive me from my belief and win by default? Show me wrong and win by default?

You do know that the theory of evolution is not founded on the personal opinion, religious views, and the positions taken by either of us.
My position is that there is a Creator with intelligence that caused life to be as we know it. Jesus believed in the Creator. I believe Jesus. If I believed in the ToE I'd literally be saying that Jesus was misled. If I went further than that to say I am a Christian but believed he was misled and mistaken, then it would be as you say, propounding bad fruit.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
My position is that there is a Creator with intelligence that caused life to be as we know it. Jesus believed in the Creator. I believe Jesus. If I believed in the ToE I'd literally be saying that Jesus was misled. If I went further than that to say I am a Christian but believed he was misled and mistaken, then it would be as you say, propounding bad fruit.
What specifically about the ToE leads you to believe its being true means Jesus was misled?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am saying that the intelligent of Neanderthals was never supported with any evidence in the past. Yes it was taught wrong if that was stated because there was no evidence to make those claims. But here is the beauty of science. Views change as evidence is accumulated and ideas questioned. That is the way science works.
Views certainly do change, don't they? And now here's another one:
"According to a study by the University of Tübingen and New York University (NYU), Neanderthals may not have been as clever as previously supposed. The experimental archaeology project found that a wood tar used by the cousins of Homo sapiens as a glue to construct tools didn't require as complex a process as once thought, suggesting that Neanderthal tool making isn't necessarily evidence of a high level of cognitive and cultural development."
So now they're "not as clever as previously supposed." Can't scientists make up their minds about the poor guys? (Guess not.) Tool-making experiments suggest Neanderthals may not have been as clever as thought
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am saying that the intelligent of Neanderthals was never supported with any evidence in the past. Yes it was taught wrong if that was stated because there was no evidence to make those claims. But here is the beauty of science. Views change as evidence is accumulated and ideas questioned. That is the way science works.
Odd that so many scientists believed for so long that Neanderthals were just plain real dumb.
Here's another little quote about that by scientists recounting the days (years) that they taught Neanderthals were real dumb:
"Archaeologist Metin Eren from the University of Exeter said: "Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals.''
Major pillar upholding the long-held assumption? My, what does THAT mean? (Not too many ways to get around it.)
Then he says, "When we think of Neanderthals we need to stop thinking in terms of 'stupid' or 'less advanced' and more in terms of 'different'."
Oh? WE need to stop think in terms of stupid or less advanced? Really? :) 'We' meaning ... well, it's open :)
Neanderthals: not stupid, just different (Now they weren't so stupid...)
Yet -- it is well admitted by many that it is a long-held assumption. Long-held assumption? Really?? Guess? Conjecture? Assumption?
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
To learn from God's creation means that God is the creator. The world tells me that God is the Creator, that He caused life to appear on the earth, that He is the originator of human life, and animal and p

Now you are finally starting to get it. The creation shows that evolution is correct no further argument.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
There's no real evidence to support fish emerging into landcrawlers. Or bacteria growing into forms that become trees. No recordings, no written documents, no visual aids insofar as the burgeoning changes. In fact, the idea that writing began after how many years of those smart neanderthals interbred is absurd. How many years were the now- considered smart neanderthals said to be on the earth before the homo sapiens emerged? Only surmises about it all coming about by evolution.

You were just starting to understand then you ignore all of the evidence. There are fish that are "landcrawlers" here in our world today. The clear evidence shows walking catfish have a variation of the gills that allow them to breath out of water. So much for the first statement.

Bacteria growing into trees? You have absolutely no understanding of the theory of evolution with this absurd statement or worse intentionally using a comparison of bacteria to trees to mislead. What makes you statement worse is this is followed by no recordings (where is the video of a bacteria changing into a tree before my eyes), then now written documents? Oh my bacteria cannot read or write? That's an intelligent argument. But wait there is more. Where are the visual aids? Exactly what visual aid other than the enormous evidence supporting evolution could you possibly need!

What is it with you and Neanderthals? Homo sapiens were around for a long time before written language and there are societies that still have no need for written language. Your own article showed how tool making which clearly requires intelligence was exhibited by Neandertals. It was only homo sapiens centered arrogance that could not accept any other form of life to be intelligent. So get over it. Evolution is the only explanation that has the evidence and it obviously bothers you.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Now you are finally starting to get it. The creation shows that evolution is correct no further argument.
I don't think so. So let me get this straight from you -- Are you saying that man (in the form of "homo sapiens") came about without an Intelligent Designer who made man by choice with His direction (not from morphing from some unknown common ancestor also linked with Neanderthals and possible ancestors of bonobos, etc. without having designed the "first man" and woman in the form of -- what is called "homo sapien")? If you have trouble understanding the question, let me know please.)
Let's do it again. Jesus spoke of Noah as a real person, not a mythological account. Granted that many religious people claim to worship God by Jesus Christ, and claim to be Christian while at the same time saying the Bible account is based on myths. That 'appears' to be rather hypocritical, saying one thing and out of the other side of his mouth or head, saying something in direct contradiction to that.
I have not seen an evolutionist conceive of the reality of that Biblical account, or support it. Jesus surely did. Jesus did not indicate he thought it was a myth. I am only quoting what I know to be the words of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures. If you don't believe he said that, that's another discussion. The discussion at hand is when someone claims to be a believer in Christ and then doesn't step up to the plate to say he believes what Jesus taught. Smacks of hypocrisy to me. Maybe not to you.
So let's go again with Christianity, myths, and evolution. Here is what Jesus said: (or for you, is said to have said):
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark." (Matthew 24.) Jesus spoke certainly as if he firmly believed that the flood in the days of Noah happened -- he didn't say it was a myth.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You were just starting to understand then you ignore all of the evidence. There are fish that are "landcrawlers" here in our world today. The clear evidence shows walking catfish have a variation of the gills that allow them to breath out of water. So much for the first statement.

Bacteria growing into trees? You have absolutely no understanding of the theory of evolution with this absurd statement or worse intentionally using a comparison of bacteria to trees to mislead. What makes you statement worse is this is followed by no recordings (where is the video of a bacteria changing into a tree before my eyes), then now written documents? Oh my bacteria cannot read or write? That's an intelligent argument. But wait there is more. Where are the visual aids? Exactly what visual aid other than the enormous evidence supporting evolution could you possibly need!

What is it with you and Neanderthals? Homo sapiens were around for a long time before written language and there are societies that still have no need for written language. Your own article showed how tool making which clearly requires intelligence was exhibited by Neandertals. It was only homo sapiens centered arrogance that could not accept any other form of life to be intelligent. So get over it. Evolution is the only explanation that has the evidence and it obviously bothers you.
Bacteria didn't grow eventually into trees with leaves and bark? I mean according to the ToE didn't the unicells change upon billions of years and evolved into -- animals and plants? No? One thing at a time.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You were just starting to understand then you ignore all of the evidence. There are fish that are "landcrawlers" here in our world today. The clear evidence shows walking catfish have a variation of the gills that allow them to breath out of water. So much for the first statement.

Bacteria growing into trees? You have absolutely no understanding of the theory of evolution with this absurd statement or worse intentionally using a comparison of bacteria to trees to mislead. What makes you statement worse is this is followed by no recordings (where is the video of a bacteria changing into a tree before my eyes), then now written documents? Oh my bacteria cannot read or write? That's an intelligent argument. But wait there is more. Where are the visual aids? Exactly what visual aid other than the enormous evidence supporting evolution could you possibly need!

What is it with you and Neanderthals? Homo sapiens were around for a long time before written language and there are societies that still have no need for written language. Your own article showed how tool making which clearly requires intelligence was exhibited by Neandertals. It was only homo sapiens centered arrogance that could not accept any other form of life to be intelligent. So get over it. Evolution is the only explanation that has the evidence and it obviously bothers you.
Nothing to prove that non-walking fish evolved into landcrawlers. Nothing. There are fish that don't walk on land, they stay fish. There are fish that have the ability to crawl on land. Nothing to show these evolved from some common ancestor.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Views certainly do change, don't they? And now here's another one:
"According to a study by the University of Tübingen and New York University (NYU), Neanderthals may not have been as clever as previously supposed. The experimental archaeology project found that a wood tar used by the cousins of Homo sapiens as a glue to construct tools didn't require as complex a process as once thought, suggesting that Neanderthal tool making isn't necessarily evidence of a high level of cognitive and cultural development."
So now they're "not as clever as previously supposed." Can't scientists make up their minds about the poor guys? (Guess not.) Tool-making experiments suggest Neanderthals may not have been as clever as thought

This article still supports that they made and used tools which takes intelligence. We do not know all of the Neanderthals of social behavior. They may have had more or less complex social interactions. And yes in science there are disagreements which cause others to rethink and retest to make the theories grow with accuracy instead of a stagnant book which you are unwilling to question.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I don't think so. So let me get this straight from you -- Are you saying that man (in the form of "homo sapiens") came about without an Intelligent Designer who made man by choice with His direction (not from morphing from some unknown common ancestor also linked with Neanderthals and possible ancestors of bonobos, etc. without having designed the "first man" and woman in the form of -- what is called "homo sapien")?

Now you get it. We came from a common ancestor of as all apes did including you. You have no evidence of an intelligent designer other than your own limitation to understand the evidence. There is no morphing about it, It took genetic change which the evidence shows.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You were just starting to understand then you ignore all of the evidence. There are fish that are "landcrawlers" here in our world today. The clear evidence shows walking catfish have a variation of the gills that allow them to breath out of water. So much for the first statement.

Bacteria growing into trees? You have absolutely no understanding of the theory of evolution with this absurd statement or worse intentionally using a comparison of bacteria to trees to mislead. What makes you statement worse is this is followed by no recordings (where is the video of a bacteria changing into a tree before my eyes), then now written documents? Oh my bacteria cannot read or write? That's an intelligent argument. But wait there is more. Where are the visual aids? Exactly what visual aid other than the enormous evidence supporting evolution could you possibly need!

What is it with you and Neanderthals? Homo sapiens were around for a long time before written language and there are societies that still have no need for written language. Your own article showed how tool making which clearly requires intelligence was exhibited by Neandertals. It was only homo sapiens centered arrogance that could not accept any other form of life to be intelligent. So get over it. Evolution is the only explanation that has the evidence and it obviously bothers you.
I used to believe in evolution. I certainly do not know everything, but I have come to not only question evolution, but realize that it's conjecture based on appearance and fossils. I'd love to know how they figure homo sapiens have "Neanderthal dna" in them, perhaps you know more about that and can offer an explanation. I used to believe everything they said. Now I do not.
What's with me and Neanderthals? A couple of things. Scientists and others (artists and comic writers, even dictionaries) have depicted for a LONG TIME Neanderthals as being real dumb, not all, of course, using the term dumb, but it takes me back to eugenics and scientists expositions that some races of current mankind inferior to others. Want to go over that again?
The more I examine the ToE here and in scientific journals, the more I see opinion. The Bible makes sense. Pure, unintelligent morphing does not. With or without contaminants.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I don't think so. So let me get this straight from you -- Are you saying that man (in the form of "homo sapiens") came about without an Intelligent Designer who made man by choice with His direction (not from morphing from some unknown common ancestor also linked with Neanderthals and possible ancestors of bonobos, etc. without having designed the "first man" and woman in the form of -- what is called "homo sapien")?

Now you get it. We came from a common ancestor of as all apes did including you. You have no evidence of an intelligent designer other than your own limitation to understand the evidence. There is no morphing about it, It took genetic change which the evidence shows.

Let's do it again. Jesus spoke of Noah as a real person, not a mythological account. Granted that many religious people claim to worship God by Jesus Christ, and claim to be Christian while at the same time saying the Bible account is based on myths. That 'appears' to be rather hypocritical, saying one thing and out of the other side of his mouth or head, saying something in direct contradiction to that.

Lets get this straight someone who never heard Jesus speak wrote that Jesus spoke of Noah. No one knows if that was ever true. Of course the bible is full of myths. Myths are used in all religions to teach values. It is like someone asking where is the moon. And accepting the pointed finger to be the moon.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This article still supports that they made and used tools which takes intelligence. We do not know all of the Neanderthals of social behavior. They may have had more or less complex social interactions. And yes in science there are disagreements which cause others to rethink and retest to make the theories grow with accuracy instead of a stagnant book which you are unwilling to question.
The Bible is not stagnant. You can say it is, but that does not mean it is. I'm not here particularly to discuss the Bible, but rather to examine the ToE. So I wasn't sure if you believe in Jesus as depicted in the Bible, but I guess I can safely surmise you do not. You don't claim to be a Christian, do you?
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
So let's go again with Christianity, myths, and evolution. Here is what Jesus said: (or for you, is said to have said):
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark." (Matthew 24.) Jesus spoke certainly as if he firmly believed that the flood in the days of Noah happened -- he didn't say it was a myth.

Again no one knows if Jesus even said that because he did not write it down. You do not know for certain what was in mind of Jesus.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
The Bible is not stagnant. You can say it is, but that does not mean it is. I'm not here particularly to discuss the Bible, but rather to examine the ToE. So I wasn't sure if you believe in Jesus as depicted in the Bible, but I guess I can safely surmise you do not. You don't claim to be a Christian, do you?
I was raised Christian but yes I no longer consider myself Christian. That is another topic if you like but unless you have a bible growing in pages with new information then yes the bible is stagnant. Those Christians willing to learn beyond the words in the bible understand that there is no conflict between evolution and Christian faith.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Now you get it. We came from a common ancestor of as all apes did including you. You have no evidence of an intelligent designer other than your own limitation to understand the evidence. There is no morphing about it, It took genetic change which the evidence shows.



Lets get this straight someone who never heard Jesus speak wrote that Jesus spoke of Noah. No one knows if that was ever true. Of course the bible is full of myths. Myths are used in all religions to teach values. It is like someone asking where is the moon. And accepting the pointed finger to be the moon.
I'm beginning to think you really don't understand what I am saying. I am saying what evolutionists believe (not what I believe any longer). You don't claim to be a Christian, do you? Someone here does and also claims to believe in evolution. THAT is what I am discussing. It's almost like an election, who you gonna vote for? I haven't heard so far that in a election here in the U.S., one can vote for two or more candidates running for the same office. It's one or the other, no combination of candidates for the same position.
Jesus did not combine evolution with creation. If some want to think or believe he spoke of myths and believed and taught them, that's up to them. But it doesn't jibe with evolution.
"“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’" That's what Jesus said. (Mark chapter 10.)
 
Top