Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Correct. The larger the flood the larger the changes. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood.
We understand the few "cities" under water.
-
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!
Evidence For And Against Evolution
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
We understand the few "cities" under water.
So what? Time is *very* consequential in every aspect of the universe. That humans are the only species that is interested is beside the point. And whether or not we can build a habitation on another astronomical body seems completely irrelevant to that.
Mostly because the models we have based on things being essentially the same everywhere fit the data so well. Even if there was an 'edge' just beyond what we have observed, such a difference would have noticeable effects on what we can see.
Everywhere we have looked there are galaxies and stars. Planets seem to be very common as are moons. Why would you think there *is* an edge to such?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Probably not in the way that you are thinking.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No explosion needed. We have enough fossils with overlapping brain sizes from roughly chimp size to ours. There really is no doubt at all.
I really don't see that as so different. It wasn't that long ago that humans didn't think about much past basic survival. The knowledge of science is very, very recent.
Sure, some things. And we know a lot about things like solubility. For example, it is the limestone dissolved in water that produces things like stalactites in caves. Other things don't dissolve in water all that well.
Yes, I figure. I'll explain the point, since you obviously didn't get it. You see -- it happened that from apparently what scientists figure, from 18,000 plus a few more, came billions.
Yes, and the population was less than a billion just over a century ago. At the current growth rate of 1.14%, the doubling time for our population is about 60 years.
But let's see. if the population was 18,000 about 70,000 years ago and is now about 8 billion people, what does that make the average growth rate for that time? That is about a factor of 450,000, which corresponds to just under 19 doubling times. That makes the average doubling time for humans over that time frame a bit more than 70,000/19 or about 3700 years.
That makes our current growth rate around 60 times as fast as the average, which just doesn't make the average seem like too fast of an expansion or too unreasonable.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@YoursTrue , the following is a very useful video. No need to watch all of it, but you are welcome to do so. From the seven minute mark until a bit before the eleven minute mark the narrator goes over our recent evolutionary past using a series of skulls with overlapping brain cases:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Maybe when I have time I'll do so later. But now again, I was thinking -- watching a little video with a baby on a toilet seat with pants on. Here's a question for you. When did gorillas, ants, and chimpanzees make and wear clothing? I know you keep saying the Bible is a big lie. Etc. But isn't it interesting that it says God first made coverings for Adam and Eve? These earlier people who penned the Bible realized that. I know you don't believe it. But I do. And it just adds up, makes more sense that no other being makes and wears clothes (in general). Yes, I know some populations either do not wear clothing, or sparse clothing, but absolutely no life-form other than humans make and wear clothing that I know of. Of course, you're going to say it's evolution. And that we pass through every stage in the womb, including those animals that have no thought of wearing clothing. But, of course, the Bible does say naked we came out and naked we go.
"As he came from his mother’s womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand." (Ecclesiates 5.) Any way you look at that scripture, we come out naked, and, as the playwright said, "can't take it with you..." The question remains, what gorilla, horse, or cat makes clothes for himself? They come out 'naked,' and have no thought of covering themselves -- with leaves or cloth, or anything else. (I know you'll say evolution did it.
)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You need to understand something. I don't believe they know about "splitting lineage" and phylogeny connected with that. It's a made up concept based on what they think or believe is evidence. So now tell me -- is there a progression in the human womb from plant life to animal life? Answer that, if you will.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Awright -- and Bach was fabulous. I like many of his pieces.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you want to be taken seriously you really need to stop asking what are at best silly questions. Clothing was a relatively late invention of man's. There are such things as foolish questions. I am sure that you do not want to look like a fool.Maybe when I have time I'll do so later. But now again, I was thinking -- watching a little video with a baby on a toilet seat with pants on. Here's a question for you. When did gorillas, ants, and chimpanzees make and wear clothing? I know you keep saying the Bible is a big lie. Etc. But isn't it interesting that it says God first made coverings for Adam and Eve? These earlier people who penned the Bible realized that. I know you don't believe it. But I do. And it just adds up, makes more sense that no other being makes and wears clothes (in general). Yes, I know some populations either do not wear clothing, or sparse clothing, but absolutely no life-form other than humans make and wear clothing that I know of. Of course, you're going to say it's evolution. And that we pass through every stage in the womb, including those animals that have no thought of wearing clothing. But, of course, the Bible does say naked we came out and naked we go.
"As he came from his mother’s womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand." (Ecclesiates 5.) Any way you look at that scripture, we come out naked, and, as the playwright said, "can't take it with you..." The question remains, what gorilla, horse, or cat makes clothes for himself? They come out 'naked,' and have no thought of covering themselves -- with leaves or cloth, or anything else. (I know you'll say evolution did it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We know that you are very ignorant when it comes to these matters. If you knew there would be no reason to believe. Knowing is superior to mere belief, but for some reason you refuse to learn. Is your faith that weak? Most Christians do not believe that God lied, Yet you apparently do.
And what did I just tell you about asking foolish questions. This particular one has been answered for you multiple times. You are still stuck on Haeckel for some odd reason.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So do other geological phenomena, like earthquakes, plate tectonics, landslides, etc.
Some submerged ruins are hardly evidence of some physically impossible global flood. Or any flood, for that matter, in and of itself.
And geologists are quite good at recognising what happened where. Yet, they don't seem to share your opinions.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The difference between these brains, might not be as big as you think.
Having said that, it's had some 7 million to get to this point. Which is quite a long time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing. Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. The excuses for clothing made maybe 170,000 years as they "emigrated" from Africa is nothing but guesswork. The more I learn about this, the more ridiculous it becomes. And, I am beginning to think, you know it is, too.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Kind of like Haeckel's concept, is that right. (Where's the proof? The observed concept? What nonsense, I am realizing while it may sound like a puff piece -- philosophical -- there really is nothing to back it up in real-time.) While I certainly don't have all the answers, you guys have certainly helped me to see what holes there are in the philosophical meanderings of some thinkers.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, so show me in real-time about splitting lineages, ok? In other words, show me the proof. OR as you would say, where's the "evidence" (beyond philosophical meanderings and musings)?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Would you say the Denisovans (or whatever they're called) were relatively dumb? And, what about the bonobos' brains? Also just not as clever, shall we say, about clothing, scientific methods, reading and writing and musing about black holes in the universe as humans? Are their brains still evolving? Are they, in fact, "breeding" with other species very like them to produce other species? I mean how long have humans been around. From that lost relative some say they bred from somehow.