Why do people....... More.....

[Vince]

I bet if you put a group on an island they would develop a language. I agree "cave men" were very aggesive , but hunting big game like mammoths would grant some kind of understandable communication.

 

[Tripple H Herps]

I bet if you put a group on an island they would develop a language. I agree "cave men" were very aggesive , but hunting big game like mammoths would grant some kind of understandable communication.

-Yes most likely, with time they would develop a language. I don't think it would be that exact generation but over a period of time they would develop a very BASIC language. It took us many years to come up with a structured language similar to Latin or ones in use today. English originates from a language founded on Germanic tribes, there language was very basic. What allot of people do not realize is that, the people all those years back did not have as developed ideas as we do now. They did not know about the earth, didn’t know how things work. Had no idea about science...etc. So having a “true” language is almost impossible until the ground roots have been established. “Tree” means “ugga”, “dirt” means “ubbadoo.” Or whatever. Then the structure such as verbs, nouns, and proper placement comes in.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

We CAN have it both ways!

I still firmly believe that science and creation are one and the same. Science is simply man's way of trying to understand God's works. Science does not undermine the existance of God... it reinforces it! Science and religion are two languages telling the same story. It may come as a real surpise to some of you, but I am an Ordained Minister AND a degreed ChemE. The argument over evolution vs. creation will never be solved as long as people continue to keep arguing with their blinders on without considering what we do know compared to what we could know!

First of all, if you consider that many of the scriptures (Old Testament) were written several thousands of years ago when the authors had very limited understanding of science, one must take that into context when reading Genesis. The NIV Version of the Bible simply says this (paraphrased):

- in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. So there really wasn't anything yet!
- then God said, "Let there be light." OK... the 'big bang' has occurred.
- then God separated the light from the dark, and the sea from the sky Hmmm... sounds like the earth was covered with water! Hmmm... Hydrogen and Oxygen in the correct ratio makes water.
- then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered in one place, and let dry ground appear, and vegetation to grow" So perhaps volcanic activity under the seas started spewing lava, thus forming land. Now, as far as the origin of the seeds for vegetation, we can speculate. Maybe it could have originated from meteors, or some other celestrial matter.
- then, God created the heavens and the lights in the sky. Sounds like the universe was becoming filled with other galaxies and stars!
- then God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures." Wow! life began in the water???
- then, God said, "Let the land produce living creatures, each to it's own kind" It doesn' say how these creatures were created... they could have easily evolved from the living things that 'teemed' in the oceans!

Here comes the part where God created Adam and Eve, the Biblical account of the creation of man... and herein lies the controversy. First of all, there is absolutely no scientific proof that man evolved from apes, and the idea that God created man from a wad of clay is pretty difficult to swallow. But, let me ask this... science has been looking for the 'missing link' that ties the evolution of man from the apes for a long time, and there has been nothing that could actually genetically tie our DNA to that of apes.

Now, let's take a look at the different species of animals. If you look at dogs, there are many species of canines that dogs could have evolved from. We accelerated their evolution by selective breeding. Cats? Well, there are also several species that 'Tabby' could have evolved from. The same goes for ALL of the species of mammals, reptiles, fish, birds... all fish are still fish, all cats are still felines, all apes are still apes. Why then, is there only ONE specie of human? We can trace the origins of literally every living creature that has evolved, but we still cannot accurately trace the origin of man!

"True science discovers God waiting behind every door." - Pope Pius XII

 

[Gregg M]

So you believe that the earth existed before the universe???? It has already been proven that the earth is a fairly new planet compared to that of the others around us..... How about looking at the oldest religions that were studied by the most anccient of civilizations, like the American Indians, or the Egyptians, or how about even the Aztecs.... They worshipped the things that truely give us life like the water, the earth, the air, the sun, the moon, the stars, and so on..... Real things, not an invisible man or woman in the sky.... The religions that talk about god are very new compared to what I just talked about...... Like I said, these are all stories written by uneducated people, a few thousand tears ago..... Science and creation do not go hand in hand..... They contradict eachother...... Science proves the creation theory wrong...... People who belive in creation can not prove science or evolution wrong, because the bible is a bunch of STORIES written before we discovered science....... The reason why science is as young as it is, is because a person was considered evil if they studied anything other than the "word of god"....... Therefore people were a bit reluctant to speak of or document any finding due to the fear of being killed for questioning the bibles word.......

 

[TheHypoGecko]

Marcia, your theory there could work just the opposite way though. Those uneducated writers of the old testament didn't know how to explain everything that occured, so they made their own theory as to what happened and said that God did all that. Just a thought. Also, I thought humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, not humans evolved from apes.

 

[E2MacPets]

First of all, if you consider that many of the scriptures (Old Testament) were written several thousands of years ago when the authors had very limited understanding of science, one must take that into context when reading Genesis.

So you are acknowledging the authors of the bible to be humans, writing of their own beliefs and their own understandings of the world, rather than the strict word of God?

Puts every word of the Bible under scrutiny if you deem the persons who first penned it to be authors, creators, rather than merely putting God's dictation in writing.

Now, let's take a look at the different species of animals. If you look at dogs, there are many species of canines that dogs could have evolved from. We accelerated their evolution by selective breeding. Cats? Well, there are also several species that 'Tabby' could have evolved from. The same goes for ALL of the species of mammals, reptiles, fish, birds... all fish are still fish, all cats are still felines, all apes are still apes. Why then, is there only ONE specie of human? We can trace the origins of literally every living creature that has evolved, but we still cannot accurately trace the origin of man!

Did God not create each and every plant and animal on earth? Why could they evolve but not man? Where does race and language fit in with the biblical stories of adam and eve and of the tower of babel?

 

[StinaUIUC]

Robert you are exactly right...humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The evidence is species going back towards the line that the apes evolved from, however there is missing information...there won't be a specimen from every species that ever existed fossilized...fossilization is a complicated process that requires specific conditions...if the conditions aren't met, then a body won't fossilize. Hence there are probably thousands of species we will never know existed because there weren't any specimens that ended up in conditions where they would have been fossilized. Some holes in the evolutionary tree will never be filled...but that doesn't mean that evolution doesn't exist. I just want to note now that I haven't said anything about God or a god or whatever existing or not...I honestly don't know what I believe as far as that goes...I just know that I don't believe that God created everything in 7 days and evolution doesn't exist...

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

well...

So you believe that the earth existed before the universe????

No, I didn't say that is what I believe, I said that's what the Bible says. Remember, I also said it should be taken in the context that this was written thousands of years ago by people with a very unlimited understanding of science.

Those uneducated writers of the old testament didn't know how to explain everything that occured, so they made their own theory as to what happened and said that God did all that.

exactly!

So you are acknowledging the authors of the bible to be humans, writing of their own beliefs and their own understandings of the world, rather than the strict word of God?

Yes, I am.

Did God not create each and every plant and animal on earth? Why could they evolve but not man?

I never said that man did not evolve... but as of now, there is no genetic ape ancestor that we can be scientifically connected with. So, 'if' we evolved just like other species, wouldn't there be an common ancestor? So far, science is at a loss.

Also, I thought humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, not humans evolved from apes.

To date, this is the most accurate scientific fact.

What I am saying is, that not all religions or religious people take the Bible literally word-for-word. We must take into consideration that the Bible as we know it today is incomplete, and those who wrote it may not have been quoting God per se. We must be careful with that, because we must be clear that many of the scriptures are what the author said... not necessarily what God said. If the Bible was taken for exactly what it meant in the literal sense, then we would not have all of the different religious doctrines around. There wouldn't be a separate belief system between say... Lutherans and Mormons and Presbytarians and Methodists and Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

The mathematical 'creation' of the universe and the world as we know it is by far too perfect to have happened by a random chance of a couple of particles of matter colliding! There is perfect order to it, and as man evolves, we are using science more and more to witness the miracle of creation.

 

[StinaUIUC]

I never said that man did not evolve... but as of now, there is no genetic ape ancestor that we can be scientifically connected with. So, 'if' we evolved just like other species, wouldn't there be an common ancestor? So far, science is at a loss.

There is no direct evidence...but there IS evidence...science is not at a complete loss. If we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with the other higher primates, then why are we so similar?.....and why do we have about 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees?...

As far as language (I forgot to address this in my last post)...verbal language is not required for communication...look at all the cooperative animals in the world for proof...lions, wolves, african wild dogs....these animals require strong communication with eachother to cooperate to successfully hunt...but they don't speak. Speech and complex written language only became a "neccessity" as science developed and things needed to be explained in depth where simple drawing and expressions could no longer communicate things effectively.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

cousins

There is no direct evidence...but there IS evidence...science is not at a complete loss. If we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with the other higher primates, then why are we so similar?.....and why do we have about 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees?...

The fact is in what you just said: "evolve from a common ancestor with the other higher primates." We have a common ancestor with them, but not from the higher primates. Science has yet to discover that common ancestor.

 

[StinaUIUC]

Yes I'm completely aware of that and that's exactly what I said. My point was that while there is no direct evidence (i.e. a fossilized ancestor that links us), there IS evidence...that being the extreme similarities between us and the other higher primates.

 

[E2MacPets]

What I am saying is, that not all religions or religious people take the Bible literally word-for-word. We must take into consideration that the Bible as we know it today is incomplete, and those who wrote it may not have been quoting God per se. We must be careful with that, because we must be clear that many of the scriptures are what the author said... not necessarily what God said. If the Bible was taken for exactly what it meant in the literal sense, then we would not have all of the different religious doctrines around. There wouldn't be a separate belief system between say... Lutherans and Mormons and Presbytarians and Methodists and Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

This is more a demonstration of our free will than it is a failing of the teachings of the bible.


How can you accept the validity of any portion of the bible if you do not accept it as the concrete word of God. Certainly it doesn't pass on any scientific merit, since the myth of creation can not be repeated in a lab.

And if you do accept the Bible as the concrete word of God, then on what do you base the existance of God?

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

creation

And if you do accept the Bible as the concrete word of God, then on what do you base the existance of God?

I do not believe that the Bible is the absolute concrete Word of God. Today's Bible was put together by the Church of Rome... with much of it left out. It has also been translated so many times by different religions in order to represent that particular faith's doctrine.
I base my belief in the existance of God by what we have learned through science... because it is too perfect for us to have created it ourselves! Even those ancient civilizations believed that there is something much greater than we are, and our little pea-brains cannot conceive of it, nor comprehend it. That is where Faith steps in... to take over where our own concepts leave off.

the myth of creation can not be repeated in a lab.

Exactly! This fact proves that the Universe was created by something far bigger than we are.

 

[riverjop]

I've always wondered this, and I'm not addressing this to anyone, just a thought!
OK....If Christianity is about 33% of the total world religion, Than how does the other 22% of the muslim world fit into the bible? Not to mention of there own separate beliefs, which are very different from the christian view. Who's right? Who's wrong? and which is an illusion? Ok that last part about the illusion was from the Moody blues...sorry I got carried away!

Edit; Religious info from "ask jeeves"

 

[Bringerofdoom]

First of all, there is absolutely no scientific proof that man evolved from apes, and the idea that God created man from a wad of clay is pretty difficult to swallow. But, let me ask this... science has been looking for the 'missing link' that ties the evolution of man from the apes for a long time, and there has been nothing that could actually genetically tie our DNA to that of apes.

See, this is why people always dont want to fully understand evolution. Our DNA can or never will tie directly to apes. Why is that you ask? because millions of years of independant evolution changes this. There are many other human-like beings, that were known before the rise of Homo-Sapien AKA modern man. We are only dated back to 160,000 years in a 3.8 billion year old planet. Neanderthals and others roamed the land WAY before us.Homo-Erectus Roamed the earth 1.6 million years ago. Before him was this guy Which is believed to be a hybrid, that lead to erectus.

Here is also a chart Where it shows we developed along with monkeys from common ancestors. Look at the chart, notice one thing? There was always 2 similar species on the earth at the same time. Then a 3rd new species shows up and takes off. Suggesting hybridization of our relatives (since millions of years ago we did not know nor care about the hybrid issue like we do now, Heck some people think inbreeding is a.o.k still.....). There is also proof of skulls and bones that fall between both species at the times.

Technically Put, We are a hybrid of neanderthals crossbreeding with another human-like specie at the time (refer to chart). For anyone to look at the skeleton of homo-erectus and not think evolution happened is not wanting to pull the wool off their eyes.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

yup!

there is absolutely no scientific proof that man evolved from apes

we developed along with monkeys from common ancestors

Evolution from apes and with apes are entirely separate concepts.

 

[Bringerofdoom]

No, you dont see the point, here is another chart Australoptihecus african, is the "missing" link.

This whole debate has caused me to write a entire webpage to showing and highligting evolution (witch ill post the link to later). I found a interesting little thing out looking at stuff, i think i have proof of where neanderthal man meet archaic man (in several areas in the world) and from the resulting breeding, that would be unquestioned at the time, made modern man. Because of the geographical locations, this would explain why people look differently.

Look at this map
See where the instances of where neanderthals and archaics were found togather at? Normally right near there there was a homo sapien found. Just like how Erectus and Archaic are found near each other and a neanderthal is nearby them. it shows a migratory pattern like animals, with incidental crossings of the 2 species. It was not like these people were like "hybridization is wrong.." and did not mate with other like-species.

The oldest of our homo-sapiens was found in east-central africa, where alot of earlier pre-man was found too. There have been tools made by our ancestors that date over 2.5 million years, suggesting someone was living then. They were only found near these pre-humans too....

Also you have to take into consideration this did not happen in one or 2 breeds, Imagine if we humans were a "morph" you see what happens when you breed a albino to a SHTCT baldy, redstripe's "evolve", Aptors and carrot tails near the 100% mark. How long did it take to acomplish this???? Mere years. Imagine what happens if tremper keeps crossing for 20 more years? heck if it was giant aptors and they were found naturally occuring in the wild, It would warrant a whole new specie listing for it.

Look at dogs, Bred from wild animals into the pets that we know and love. It was not like the retrivers, rottweilers, pitbulls, chows, ETC were found roaming in the wild and trained.

Another Look at Sanannah, Bengals and other cat crosses. Take a wild african cat, cross it to a domestic and its a new breed and a pet. The same thing happened years ago in egypt and this is how most of the domestic cats came to be.

This is evolution, proven all the time without a thought about it. Another 100,000 years from now. We as Humans will be a new race, atleast a new race classifiable by science standards. Take a look at the FIRST Guiness book of world records, then look at the 2004 book. MERE Years compared to normal human evolution time.

Imagine where humans will be in the year 5005? remember, loooking at the charts humans will be around for a while.. Thats if we dont kill this planet first, but from the looks of it we have a new one in our sights.

Also, marcia if you look at this map there is a possible meeting of the homomids, that i believe made the modern man in the area where i think eden was suposed to be. It shows the neanderthals and the erectus, the only thing missing is the archaic. But remember these are found, There are many more not found to. Take that how you want to.....

 

[riverjop]

That is an outstanding map! Did you just draw that? J/K


So Why is no one answering my question?....hmmmmm that seems to be the MO.....where's Monte?

 

[leaftail]

Overton, what was your question? And did it by any possible chance, have anyyyyyyything to do with geckos?

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

gulp...

I sure hope we don't get 'busted' for posting such a contraversial subject on the Leopard Gecko Forum! I tried really hard not to get 'sucked up' into this thread... but just couldn't keep my mouth shut. LOL! Overton, I will be happy to answer ANY question you have along those lines privately.