• 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!

Who believes that both Creationism and Evolution to be false?

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
According to Jainism , times on the earth is divided into two parts: "times of
pleasures" followed by "times of actions". During "times of pleasures", nobody has to do any work to survive. Environment was very pleasant, filled with abundance of gold , music , fruits , vegetables and light. All animals and humans are vegetarian.
Resources where plentiful.

During "times of action" , people have to work together to extract resources from Earth and survive.

Thus , current human civilization have evolved from the ancient human tribes. These tribes lived in extremely pleasant environment were they had noting to do but enjoy life.

Jain Myths are not scientific evidence. All religions teach that Humans are now degraded from what they once were:

-Christian, Men walk with God in perfection in the Garden of Eden
-Hinduism, Humans lived once in an age (satya yuga) when humans lived in truth and were pure.
-Jains, We lived in a time of pleasure.
-Pygmies, humans were vegetarians and immortal.

These teachings are not historical in nature. These Myths are to show our true nature not to understand our history.
 
Last edited:

religion99

Active Member
No offence, but then you don't understand the evolution of, reptiles and mammals and specifically hominds. We are mammals and mammals were on earth before humans. In fact the hobit guy is a homind and so is Neanderthal, homo erutus and others. They are humanoids and some of them lived at the same time as us on the planet we shared, before they went extint.

For example the first flowers evolved.

NOVA | First Flower | PBS

which was about 128 million years ago.

Modern humans migrated out of africa around 200 million years ago.

Unless your balck, you have about 1 to 4% Neanderthal dna still in you. If your Asian, maybe denosovian dna still in you.


This proved our ancestory with the apes among many other lines of evidence, such as the billions of facts I mentioned earlier. We confirmed what genome fused between us and the apes. Chromosome 2 Genome

Isn't it possible that humanoids were aliens and we have no relation with them?
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Isn't it possible that humanoids were aliens and we have no relation with them?


"Isn't it possible that humanoids were aliens and we have no relation with them?"

No.

One thing to think about here, is any alien just to get to earth, would posses very advancd technology and not just be learning about walking, stone tools, fire and cooking.

The classification is hominid and that belongs to

"Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids."

Hominid Species

the word humanoids defintion is only that something looks human.

We have direct evidence we evolved from earlier hominid's. Which also go back to the great apes. Its in our dna, the fossil record and our anatomy and physiology. Again it is a done deal.

Now there is something called Genomic SETI.

Genomic SETI | Space Archaeology

This is a real search going on to see if there are "messages" or minipulation in our dna from aliens.


religion99, spend some time reading and learning this website. Really.

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

It is state of the art on the subject.

here is something else you should read.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/129078-11-500-year-old-g-bekli.html

One of the threads started by shawn001 seems to imply that stone age people were not as stupid as today's scientist's claims.

Actually, I don't think scientists claimed them stupid, in fact we have known for a little while now that they were smart. However, you can also see the rise of intelligence as subhumans brains changed and we became more and more modern humans and importantly we learn to cook meat and start using more adavanced tools and such.

I think that was more the public's persceptions, as your dumb like a Neanderthal.

Neanderthals were another part of the human genus branch.

What If Neanderthals Had Not Gone Extinct?

What If Neanderthals Had Not Gone Extinct? | LifesLittleMysteries.com
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
shawn001;2858179]Actually,

Neanderthals were another part of the human genus branch.

Not all Humans, mostly Eurasian (south European and middle eastern), and majority South European have more Neanderthal DNA.

As gathered from you links provided.

Please clarify if im incorrect.
 

ScottySatan

Well-Known Member
Recently I was browsing the Internet about the evidence of existence of Giant human beings in the past and found out that there were some stories about their remains being found were published regularly until about 1950s in New York Times and Washington Post. Post 1950 , they started self-filtering these news because it contradicts with Theory of Evolution. Please discuss and share your knowledge.

Here is one of the links:

Are the Lovelock Giants, and other Giants found across the globe, just big humans or a separate human species? - Yahoo! Answers

Why did they all opt to publish in newspapers and not in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? You are allowed to publish the same work in both. That they didn't publish a big finding like that usually means that they couldn't. Why couldn't they? It could be because they were wrong, data was very inconclusive, or because they were repressed, I suppose. However, critical claims and evidence against Darwin's theory are widely published in the scientific literature. So it doesn't make a lot of sense that it was a cover-up.

Also, it's unclear to me why the discovery of giant human skeletons would argue strongly against evolution?
 
Last edited:

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Not all Humans, mostly Eurasian (south European and middle eastern), and majority South European have more Neanderthal DNA.

As gathered from you links provided.

Please clarify if im incorrect.

hominid and that belongs to

"Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids."

Hominid Species


"Not all Humans, mostly Eurasian (south European and middle eastern), and majority South European have more Neanderthal DNA."

Not all humans have left over Neanderthal dna in them, the ones you mention above have between 1 and 4% still.


But Neanderthal's were an extinct member of the Homo genus.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
shawn001;2863234]

Not all humans have left over Neanderthal dna in them, the ones you mention above have between 1 and 4% still.


But Neanderthal's were an extinct member of the Homo genus.

Thanks

Thats what im saying, not all Humans have Neanderthal DNA, if the DNA was not left over then maybe it was never there, then we cant say that all humans have traces of this DNA.

i just wanted to confirm those who still have this DNA were the bulk of Europeans (Eurasian), no debate, was just interested.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
Thanks

Thats what im saying, not all Humans have Neanderthal DNA, if the DNA was not left over then maybe it was never there, then we cant say that all humans have traces of this DNA.

i just wanted to confirm those who still have this DNA were the bulk of Europeans (Eurasian), no debate, was just interested.

Someone posted a thread on RF about this. It seems all humans but some tribes in Africa. Have small amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Even tribesmen from New Guinea. This is being used as even more evidence that all humans came out of Africa.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

At one time in the not so distant past, there were more then one human speices on the planet. More then a few in fact.

Some of the people in Asia don't have Neanderthal DNA, but have Denisovan dna
New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

Evolution's "new twist": Neanderthal-like "sister group" bred with humans like us.


New Type of Ancient Human Found

We also just found another new human genus they believe. The red deer people.

This is a great site for state of the art human evolution information.

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

At one time in the not so distant past, there were more then one human speices on the planet. More then a few in fact.

Some of the people in Asia don't have Neanderthal DNA, but have Denisovan dna
New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

Evolution's "new twist": Neanderthal-like "sister group" bred with humans like us.


New Type of Ancient Human Found

We also just found another new human genus they believe. The red deer people.

This is a great site for state of the art human evolution information.

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Thanks for that, I was wandering about the Australian Aboriginal people, if they had been found with Neanderthal DNA or not???

great Info.
 
It depends on how you define evolution and creationism.

I reject the notion that all life was created, full-formed, 6,000 years ago. I also reject the ignorance-fueled claim that random mutation, filtered by natural selection, is the creative power behind the designs found throughout the biological world.

If those are your definitions of creationism and evolution, then, yes, I believe both to be false.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I also reject the ignorance-fueled claim that random mutation, filtered by natural selection, is the creative power behind the designs found throughout the biological world.

this would all be due to your ignorance on the subject at hand
 
this would all be due to your ignorance on the subject at hand

Actually, it would be due to the total absence of evidence. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. That sums up my views on Darwinian evolution in a nutshell.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Actually, it would be due to the total absence of evidence. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. That sums up my views on Darwinian evolution in a nutshell.


there is a mountain of evidence

again, you just dont have the knowledge



evolution is as fact as gravity
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Actually, it would be due to the total absence of evidence. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. That sums up my views on Darwinian evolution in a nutshell.

And I would say that anyone who makes the statement,"total absense of evidence" when talking about evolution, doesn't understand the theory.
 

Reptillian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Now is as good a time as any to put forth my hypothesis of Musicelution. Its like String "Theory" but applied to biology. DNA is like the strings in string theory. The DNA vibrates in a certain harmonic frequency forming various "notes". Each different "note" results in a different type of cell. Those cells then interact with each other to form musical modes. Different modes correspond to different kingdoms in biology. (animal, plant, bacteria, fungus, protist) Different "rhythms" and "melodies" correspond to different organs. Finally, each individual species is a "song" and individual members have different "refrains". The reason some creatures are similar is that there songs are similar...doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
 
Top