Creationism/Intelligent Design

Where did you get that.  I won't trust it without knowing it's from a reputable source.  There is certainly evidence that we have evolved from homo ergaster, however, and I may have just gotten my names mixed up.

You know what, inpraiseoffolly? I am done trying to reason with you. You do not see the reason behind God's actions in the old testament and are clearly taking them out of context by saying humanity had done nothing taht provoked God's wrath. God is a loving merciful God but is also a just God. And that is it I am done arguing with you. And yo will probably say I am doing this so I can think I had the final word with this, but I am done with these type of arguements. They go nowhere and are not helpful to anyone as they exasperate people on any side of an arguement.  

inpraiseoffolly wrote: Where did you get that.  I won't trust it without knowing it's from a reputable source.  There is certainly evidence that we have evolved from homo ergaster, however, and I may have just gotten my names mixed up.

    

I don't know the site, i know i saw a better family tree once, but I don't know if I can find that on the net.

I believe the Neanderthal isn't actually as close a relation as this image imply's. So don't pay too close attention.

Neanderthal man came to europe well before Homo sapiens, and originated from far earlier than Homo Sapiens, so the link isn't proven to be from the same ancestors.

It's been 10 years since college, so my knowledge weakens every second

inpraiseoffolly wrote: tuxon wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: Where did you get that.  I won't trust it without knowing it's from a reputable source.  There is certainly evidence that we have evolved from homo ergaster, however, and I may have just gotten my names mixed up.       I don't know the site, i know i saw a better family tree once, but I don't know if I can find that on the net. I believe the Neanderthal isn't actually as close a relation as this image imply's. So don't pay too close attention. Neanderthal man came to europe well before Homo sapiens, and originated from far earlier than Homo Sapiens, so the link isn't proven to be from the same ancestors. It's been 10 years since college, so my knowledge weakens every second   Neanderthal and homo sapiens interbred... that's why we have blonds...   I may be wrong, as I've said, and I will do some research of my own into and get back to you.

    

we have blonds and red haired people because of an overpopulation of woman in Europe, which lead to differtiation, the odd woman with little differences in hair, were favourable mates to the regular, brown/black haired woman.

the situation has normalised, so lesser blonds are born currently, untill they become scarce once more.

try and find a blond outside western/northern Europe (not counting migration), they excist, but merely as freak (not negatively meant) occurences.

the fact they do excist outside NW Europe means it's likely an inbuild (dormant) gene. and not the result of localised breeding with non-homo sapiens
    
    

Edited by tuxon - January 24 2007 at 18:15

We are all gonna be dead by the time they find out something about this... and I'm not even researching...

oh boy... *micky turns and runs for the exit before getting sucked in*

inpraiseoffolly wrote: and thus a supernatural being called God must have done the creating.  What it fails to explain, however, is how this supernatural being could have come about. God’s existence requires no explanation and no proof because He is God. That’s the argument that gives Idealism the most enviable advantage over Materialism.   After all, if you're just going to claim that God has been there forever, you might as well say that the universe and life have been there forever, That’s almost exactly what dialectic materialism says. because you accomplish the same in both situations. Absolutely, that’s how materialism deity-izes (deifies) the matter. As a materialist, you can’t explain what the matter is, can you? That’s why your basic premise is false. For this reason, any materialist theory (including the Evolution theory) is flawed and will always be just that – a theory. We’ve been through this on the atheist thread... how about the following statement: think of creationism in wider terms – not the 6-day deal, but a process, which the ancient man who wrote the Bible could never imagine. God created the matter. What was the initial shape and form of it – we don’t know and will never know; it could be the Big bang particles, or the Bang itself, or something else. From that point on, everything went the way science describes it. Thus the matter/science/etc., becomes a particular case of creationism.

    

cuncuna wrote: I can't believe I looked at this for a second time...

    

The fact that you don't believe, doesn't make it implausable of happening.

I am late to the discussion, but this is what I have to say:

I'm very late to the discussion but my knowledge of the subject (albiet very limited) points to evolution as the most likely theory. Unfortunately evolution can't be observed as it is a process which takes millions of years but the evidence left behind in the form of fossils does in my opinion point towards evolution being correct.

Yes there are many 'missing links' in the chain but just because we don't know about the existance of a species now it doesn't mean we will never know about it, and even if we never find fossils of a missing link it doesn't mean that they never existed afterall the missing species may have lived in areas which don't produce fossils as often as other areas.

So to sum up, just because we don't know something today it doesn't mean we won't know it tomorrow.