# If everyone originated from 2 people...



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Then why doesnt everyone look like their inbred?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 5, 2011)

They don't????


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 5, 2011)

We look like we came from monkeys.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 6, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> We look like we came from monkeys.



rather apelike...i agree..


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Mar 6, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> We look like we came from monkeys.



Except the chick in your avatar, right.  More like bigfoot


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 6, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> Except the chick in your avatar, right.  More like bigfoot



Hahaha! Yea, thats a biggun!


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 6, 2011)

Civilization changes.......man remains pretty much the same..........
......monkeys with car keys..........and nukes!'


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> Except the chick in your avatar, right.  More like bigfoot



Gigantopithicus

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=_bNzTenjPMP98Abwm6HZDw&ved=0CDMQ9QEwBA


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 6, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> Then why doesnt everyone look like their inbred?


Maybe we do, but we just don't know any better.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 6, 2011)

I've always said that Africans are the best empirical evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor. This is simply due to the fact that they have never left Africa - the place where we first climbed down out of trees. 

Isn't this exactly the type of evidence we would expect to see if evolution were true?

If we all came from two people it seems we would all be roughly similar in bone structure, skin color, etc....but we aren't.


----------



## Capt Quirk (Mar 6, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> If we all came from two people it seems we would all be roughly similar in bone structure, skin color, etc....but we aren't.


Environment plays heavily in how critters evolve. There are reasons that Scandinavians are fair skinned, light haired, and Africans are dark skinned. Just like Polar Bears and Grizzlies.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> I've always said that Africans are the best empirical evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor. This is simply due to the fact that they have never left Africa - the place where we first climbed down out of trees.
> 
> Isn't this exactly the type of evidence we would expect to see if evolution were true?
> 
> If we all came from two people it seems we would all be roughly similar in bone structure, skin color, etc....but we aren't.


Have we stopped evolving now? And why wont those stinkin' monkeys in the zoo go ahead and evolve already?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

Capt Quirk said:


> Environment plays heavily in how critters evolve. There are reasons that Scandinavians are fair skinned, light haired, and Africans are dark skinned. Just like Polar Bears and Grizzlies.



Very correct!


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 6, 2011)

Capt Quirk said:


> Environment plays heavily in how critters evolve. There are reasons that Scandinavians are fair skinned, light haired, and Africans are dark skinned. Just like Polar Bears and Grizzlies.





Yes. However, this takes much longer than literal creationist allow for in earths geological history. The microevolution you are refering to doesnt happen as fast as it would need to in order to fit a 6-day model. Take for example, Eskimos. They have lived in the region they now occupy for some 5,000 years. In an area with the average temperature reaching only 46degrees you would think they would be lihter skinned than they appear. especially given the fact that they are fully clothed all year, therby, recieving minimal exposure to sunlight.



> Have we stopped evolving now? And why wont those stinkin' monkeys in the zoo go ahead and evolve already?



Not if you agree with the above statement, at least not in a micro since of evolution. Speciation (macroevolution)doesn't occur overnight. No scientist claims that the monkeys you see in zoos will evolve into humans given enough time. Evolution claims that we have a common ancestor with modern day primates, which means if you go back in the fossil record far enough you will find a species that we both came from. For whatever reason our course in evolution took different routes perhaps due to climatic changes as suggested above.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

What is the definition of evolution as it pertains to this discussion?

Is it "change over time"?

Or is it "the origin of humans"?

One has scientific basis, the other pretends to.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Mar 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> What is the definition of evolution as it pertains to this discussion?
> 
> Is it "change over time"?
> 
> ...



No clue man...I can say though, i met a gal that i am sure missed the evolution bus....either that or she got off at the wrong stop.  She was HAIRY and she looked like she could beat the tar out of Chuck Norris with one hand behind her back....


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> I've always said that Africans are the best empirical evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor. This is simply due to the fact that they have never left Africa - the place where we first climbed down out of trees.
> 
> Isn't this exactly the type of evidence we would expect to see if evolution were true?
> 
> If we all came from two people it seems we would all be roughly similar in bone structure, skin color, etc....but we aren't.



I don't think it is appropriate to refer to a race as "empirical evidence".

It implys that you have studied and collected data, not just watched TV and made an assumption.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> No clue man...I can say though, i met a gal that i am sure missed the evolution bus....either that or she got off at the wrong stop.  She was HAIRY and she looked like she could beat the tar out of Chuck Norris with one hand behind her back....



Was it the girl in Ambush's avatar? Chuck is a short dude!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think it is appropriate to refer to a race as "empirical evidence".
> 
> It implys that you have studied and collected data, not just watched TV and made an assumption.



http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color



Polar bears have black skin. Eskimos have darker skin than many other humans. Kind of shoots down the Smithsonian theory here.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color



From the link you provided.

Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or "races." The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that "races" represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history.


----------



## JFS (Mar 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Eskimos have darker skin than many other humans. Kind of shoots down the Smithsonian theory here.



http://scienceline.org/2007/06/ask-dricoll-inuiteskimos/

Also http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Polar bears have black skin. Eskimos have darker skin than many other humans. Kind of shoots down the Smithsonian theory here.



The link is about people not polar bears, and it addresses Eskimos.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think it is appropriate to refer to a race as "empirical evidence".
> 
> It implys that you have studied and collected data, not just watched TV and made an assumption.




In post#12, _stringmusic _asked me a typical, and retarded, question concerning evolution. I responded with an answer just a few notches higher on the I.Q. scale than his question hoping it would hit home in an elementary way. 

To say it another way, a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.

Although, if you had a theory like evolution (human evolution) it doesn't seem too absurd to consider a simple glance at the different breeds of humans  as an empirical starting point regarding evidence.

For example, if I said that chimps and humans have a common ancestor, yet, we all looked like grasshoppers there would be a little bit of a problem. However, chimps and humans having a common ancestor seems more plausible because we "look" so much alike. That said, Africans "look" more "chimp like" than, say, the Nordic people.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Mar 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Was it the girl in Ambush's avatar? Chuck is a short dude!!!



NO...it looked like she was straight out of Tennessee...if i was a betting man, i would bet a paycheck she could spit some beachnut 15 feet into a cup and not miss a drop.  She was definitely a woMAN,...as in Whoa Man!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> In post#12, _stringmusic _asked me a typical, and retarded, question concerning evolution. I responded with an answer just a few notches higher on the I.Q. scale than his question hoping it would hit home in an elementary way.
> 
> To say it another way, a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
> 
> ...



There are no different breeds of humans.

I would say that chimps and lesser monkeys look more like Caucasians.  Orangutans favor Asians and African Americans look more like Gorillas to me.  They have nothing to do with one another.  That's just my opinion.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> NO...it looked like she was straight out of Tennessee...if i was a betting man, i would bet a paycheck she could spit some beachnut 15 feet into a cup and not miss a drop.  She was definitely a woMAN,...as in Whoa Man!!!


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

> There are no different breeds of humans.



Sure there are....just like there are different breeds of dogs, cats, etc. Why is the operating assumption of liberals and Christians always that humans are different from ervery other species on the planet and that traits which distinguish one breed, of the same species breed, from another do not apply, i.e., hair, bone structure, height, weight, intellect, etc..?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Sure there are....just like there are different breeds of dogs, cats, etc. Why is the operating assumption of liberals and Christians always that humans are different from ervery other species on the planet and that traits which distinguish one breed, of the same species breed, from another do not apply, i.e., hair, bone structure, height, weight, intellect, etc..?



Are you talking about Eugenics?


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Are you talking about Eugenics?



I suppose it relates to the topic. My point, as it relates to the original thread topic, is that humans as a species were heading toward different paths in evolution. For example, I think that had technological innovation, which attributed to exploration, been absent in history we would have eventually speciated, wherein, it would be impossible for, say, an African to procreate with a Nordic.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> I suppose it relates to the topic. My point, as it relates to the original thread topic, is that humans as a species were heading toward different paths in evolution. For example, I think that had technological innovation, which attributed to exploration, been absent in history we would have eventually speciated, wherein, it would be impossible for, say, an African to procreate with a Nordic.



I'm interested to know where you got this notion.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I'm interested to know where you got this notion.




Well, it happens all the time in the animal kingdom - given enough time and selective pressure. It's how we got to this stage in evolution.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> There are no different breeds of humans.
> 
> I would say that chimps and lesser monkeys look more like Caucasians.  Orangutans favor Asians and African Americans look more like Gorillas to me.  They have nothing to do with one another.  That's just my opinion.



Sounds like the plot of a 70's sci-fi movie with Charlton Heston.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> In post#12, _stringmusic _asked me a typical, and retarded, question concerning evolution. I responded with an answer just a few notches higher on the I.Q. scale than his question hoping it would hit home in an elementary way.
> 
> To say it another way, a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
> 
> ...



So, Jimmy Durante evolved from a probosics monkey? Right, that makes perfect sense. Or is your answer stupid because the question was stupid? Right! I am with you now.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The link is about people not polar bears, and it addresses Eskimos.



I read the Eskimo bit also, interesting, but not that solid. You went back and added a link I didn't get to read yet, so bear with me.

So, how about people that live along similar latitudes that have very different skin tones? Like Englishmen and Native North Americans (like the Great Lakes Huron)? Englishmen eat a lot of fish, and they are mostly pasty white.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I read the Eskimo bit also, interesting, but not that solid. You went back and added a link I didn't get to read yet, so bear with me.
> 
> So, how about people that live along similar latitudes that have very different skin tones? Like Englishmen and Native North Americans (like the Great Lakes Huron)? Englishmen eat a lot of fish, and they are mostly pasty white.



Someone else added links. Only one with my name on it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Someone else added links. Only one with my name on it.



Ah yes, I see now. If you guys would stick with one avatar for more than a few days I wouldn't be so confused. Keep the beer girl!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

JFS said:


> http://scienceline.org/2007/06/ask-dricoll-inuiteskimos/
> 
> Also [url]http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm[/url]



OK, I caught up on the additional link, and all i can say is, look at the map at the bottom (I edited and added it here). They have cleverly contradicted their own theory with a wonderful GIS map. It looks like pretty random distribution based on latitudes. It does have some continental patterns, but continents are big.  Then they say how *non-random *the distribution is. Did they look at the map?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

Doesn't look random to me. I see dark nearer to the equator and lighter as you get further away. Not a perfect distribution but the pattern is definitely there. I find the western hemisphere the most interesting. Darker colors near the equator getting lighter the further you go north and south. Interesting considering the migration route of people went from north to south. What is the date for this distribution map?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Doesn't look random to me. I see dark nearer to the equator and lighter as you get further away. Not a perfect distribution but the pattern is definitely there. I find the western hemisphere the most interesting. Darker colors near the equator getting lighter the further you go north and south. Interesting considering the migration route of people went from north to south. What is the date for this distribution map?



The data is all pre-1940 in order to normalize for the factor of mass migration (not a bad idea).

Have a look my analysis of the map. After 6 years working in the scientific disciplines I have learned that just because it gets published doesn't mean it is right.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

Your analysis I think falls short because you're looking for perfectly equal distribution of skin colors across the globe according to latitude. But human migration didn't happen uniformly either in time or geography. Also as the Smithsonian Institute link points out there are other factors at play such as diet, later migrations, etc.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Your analysis I think falls short because you're looking for perfectly equal distribution of skin colors across the globe according to latitude. But human migration didn't happen uniformly either in time or geography. Also as the Smithsonian Institute link points out there are other factors at play such as diet, later migrations, etc.



That is their claim. This data is meant to be pre-mass migration. Too many factors involved to critique diet, but, we all pretty much eat similar things. No one eats rocks exclusively, it is pretty much all meat, seafood, or vegetable matter.

The range of the first color scale (12 units, compared to all the others, 2 units) is not acceptable. The EPA would accuse me of trying to hide data. It would not fly. This effectively lumps over half of the available land mass into one category. I am sure that it did not tell the story they are trying to convince you of, so they lumped it all together to make 1 color, and thus trick you into agreeing that the data supports their hypothesis.

I am certain that the geostatistical correlation would prove to be insignificant. Similarly poor significance could be shown using biodiversity, GDP, elevation, government types, wars, or any number of other factors. A relationship could be shown, but it would not be significant. 

I am curious myself how many data points were used? What interpolation method was used? Did they include the non-land mass areas in their interpolation?

Don't trust the scientists, they are very much like religious fanatics, always trying to convince you to believe what they believe.


----------



## georgiabow (Mar 12, 2011)

things like this always make me wonder. i wonder, why cant we all just come to realization the we do not know how we came about, and will most likely never know, and leave it at that, and move on with our lives. regardless of any argument presented, by either side, this debate will continue to go on indefinately.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 12, 2011)

We know much more about our origins than we used to and continue to learn more. There may always be creationists but they lost the debate a long time ago.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> We know much more about our origins than we used to and continue to learn more. There may always be creationists but they lost the debate a long time ago.



I laughed out loud when I read this. You don't understand science, or religion.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I laughed out loud when I read this. You don't understand science, or religion.



Do you think that scientists should stop trying to figure everything out and just go on the word of the Bible?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that scientists should stop trying to figure everything out and just go on the word of the Bible?



Scientists don't "figure out" anything. They develop the language of science to fit descriptions of how things are percieved.

Without bringing the Bible into the discussion at all, science is what it is, and it is not what you make it out to be.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I laughed out loud when I read this. You don't understand science, or religion.



I'm not sure someone who subscribes to creationism has the authority to accuse anyone of either.


----------



## JFS (Mar 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Scientists don't "figure out" anything. They develop the language of science to fit descriptions of how things are percieved.



I don't follow you.  If we don't understand the mechanism by which some natural process works, and scientists successfully do research to determine their causes and processes, how is that not figuring it out?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> I'm not sure someone who subscribes to creationism has the authority to accuse anyone of either.



I agree that I have no authority, it is just an observation.

BTW, How do you know what I subscribe too?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2011)

JFS said:


> I don't follow you.  If we don't understand the mechanism by which some natural process works, and scientists successfully do research to determine their causes and processes, how is that not figuring it out?



If we describe the fruit of the apple true as an "Apple", and we know it came from the tree, we have not "figured anything out".


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I agree that I have no authority, it is just an observation.
> 
> BTW, How do you know what I subscribe too?



Reasonable guess.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Reasonable guess.



Than I suppose I have done a reasonable job in bearing fruit.

Would you reasonably guess that I am also a scientist?


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Than I suppose I have done a reasonable job in bearing fruit.
> 
> Would you reasonably guess that I am also a scientist?



Since you've suggested that you were, I would probably reasonably guess that as well. What kind of scientist? Do you mind asking where you got your education? What kind of work do you do now?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Since you've suggested that you were, I would probably reasonably guess that as well. What kind of scientist? Do you mind asking where you got your education? What kind of work do you do now?



Good guess.

I earned my degree from a school in the University System of GA. GIS with a concentration in Environmental Sciences. I work for an environmental consulting and engineering firm. I do all types of environmental work.


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 14, 2011)

I was just worried you were a 'biologist' from the Discovery Institute or something of that nature. 

Alright, you're a scientist, but that still doesn't make you an authority on evolutionary biology. Not saying you've suggested you were, but the times you mentioned your profession were also times when the topic was about evolution or creation - And I'm reading between the lines.


----------



## JFS (Mar 14, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> If we describe the fruit of the apple true as an "Apple", and we know it came from the tree, we have not "figured anything out".



Can you define "figured out"?  If we don't understand how traits are passed between generations and we learn more about genetics, haven't we figured out how traits are passed by our describing genes and DNA?   Yes, we are describing a process that preceded our observations, but if we undertakes processes that reveal previously unknown information and that knowledge provides a logical and predictive framework, what is that?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2011)

I think for the most part that psychologists have figured out (came to understand) how and why people tend to want to believe in Gods.  I haven't met too many people who believe in God(s) that are aware of this research.


----------



## JFS (Mar 15, 2011)

Are earthquakes caused by god's wrath?  Or tectonic plates shifting?   Would ancient goat herders have understood faults and plate tectonics or been inclined to mis-attribute the causes of such events?  I wonder if a scientist could figure it out?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2011)

JFS said:


> Are earthquakes caused by god's wrath?  Or tectonic plates shifting?   Would ancient goat herders have understood faults and plate tectonics or been inclined to mis-attribute the causes of such events?  I wonder if a scientist could figure it out?



Why do you and Ambush think every prophet in the Bible was a goat herder?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you and Ambush think every prophet in the Bible was a goat herder?



I understand some of the players were carpenters.  Regardless, they all had less scientific knowledge than a modern 6 year old.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 15, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> If we describe the fruit of the apple true as an "Apple", and we know it came from the tree, we have not "figured anything out".



Says the "scientist" sitting in an air conditioned electrically lit room sending a message over the Internet.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I understand some of the players were carpenters.  Regardless, they all had less scientific knowledge than a modern 6 year old.



And what exactly has been disproven scientifically that prophets of the Bible have claimed?


----------



## JFS (Mar 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And what exactly has been disproven scientifically that prophets of the Bible have claimed?



Disproven is the wrong word; discredited is better.  Take my earthquake example.  People of the OT era didn't understand plate tectonics.  When the earth shook they viewed that as something god did directly and evidence of god him/her/itself perhaps being angry.  I don't blame them, why else would the ground do such crazy stuff if you don't know?

But now we know what causes earthquakes, and it is more reasonable to conclude that the people of the OT were not divinely inspired, they were simply wrong in their attribution of the cause of certain events.  Most of us no longer believe hurricanes go around targeting gays either or droughts striking the bad guys. The list goes on and on but I'm sure you get the idea.  Of course you can retreat into some god is the force behind the natural  causes argument and ask me to "prove" it wrong, which is of course impossible, no more than you can prove Brahman or Thor or my favorite garden gnome isn't behind it. But you can't prove it either, and it's not really what those OT people thought.  So the whole fundamental world view that gave rise to scripture is no longer viable.  On a rational and informed basis you would never get there to start with so it isn’t really something we need to disprove, the whole underlying premise is discredited so it never gets to the point of being a tenable proposition worthy of examination.

But if you are taking bets I'll put $100k on Noah's world flood and extinction being scientifically false.


----------



## Havana Dude (Mar 15, 2011)

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2011)

Man and ape evolved from an ape-like creature. Out of necessity and over hundreds of thousands of years, each took their own path to where they are now.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2011)

Anyone ever wonder why we were "created" with Tailbones?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 15, 2011)

Havana Dude said:


> If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?



Scientists don't claim humans evolved from apes but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen under evolution. All it takes is a geographical separation isolating two populations of a species into separate gene pools, one population evolves a certain way and the other population doesn't. You now have the original species and a newly evolved species.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2011)

It's like asking if dogs evolved from wolves, why do we still have wolves? Why do fish that live deep in caves and never see sunlight have no eyes? Why do some squirrels fly and others don't? Why do humans have different color eyes and hair color?

Natural selection, geological location, genetic drift, Isolation, environmental change, among other things all play a part in why species evolve.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And what exactly has been disproven scientifically that prophets of the Bible have claimed?



Genesis 1:16    And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lessor light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

It is entirely understandable for a primitive culture to believe that the moon is a light source, that it actually produces light.  However, the moon is no more a light source than a mirror.  A mirror does not produce light, it merely reflects light that is produced by another light source.

I think that modern science has proven that the moon is not a light source.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Genesis 1:16    And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lessor light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> 
> It is entirely understandable for a primitive culture to believe that the moon is a light source, that it actually produces light.  However, the moon is no more a light source than a mirror.  A mirror does not produce light, it merely reflects light that is produced by another light source.
> 
> I think that modern science has proven that the moon is not a light source.


And we are 10000% sure the "lesser light" means moon? Or could we maybe assume there is more light during the day and lesser light at night and God made that happen.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And we are 10000% sure the "lesser light" means moon? Or could we maybe assume there is more light during the day and lesser light at night and God made that happen.



People a lot smarter than me seem to think so.  Pretty much any "modern translation" Bible states it like this:

For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down on earth.  The greater one, the sun, presides during the day; the lessor one, the moon, presides during the night.  He also made the stars.
(New Living Translation)


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> People a lot smarter than me seem to think so.  Pretty much any "modern translation" Bible states it like this:
> 
> For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down on earth.  The greater one, the sun, presides during the day; the lessor one, the moon, presides during the night.  He also made the stars.
> (New Living Translation)



 Here is another question, is there a light in the sky at night? The obvious answer is yes, I dont read into this verse very much but that seems to be all there is to it. It doesnt break down the moon or describe it as the source of the light, it simply states that it is a light. Here is another way to think about it, shine a flashlight on a wall and someone will say "there is a light on that wall" The wall itself is not the source of the light, its the flashlight, either way, there is light on the wall. I see it the same way with this verse.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Here is another question, is there a light in the sky at night? The obvious answer is yes, I dont read into this verse very much but that seems to be all there is to it. It doesnt break down the moon or describe it as the source of the light, it simply states that it is a light. Here is another way to think about it, shine a flashlight on a wall and someone will say "there is a light on that wall" The wall itself is not the source of the light, its the flashlight, either way, there is light on the wall. I see it the same way with this verse.



I understand what you're saying.  That's why I initially addressed the "mirror".  A person might call the mirror or the wall a light.  That is exaclty my point.  A person might very well perceive it that way.  A person writing an ancient text might very well perceive it that way.  I think it is less likely that the omnipotent being that created everything would perceive it that way.  The creator knows the exact function of each part in great detail.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I understand what you're saying.  That's why I initially addressed the "mirror".  *A person might call the mirror or the wall a light.*  That is exaclty my point.  A person might very well perceive it that way.


In your opinion, does one have to state the source of the light to describe the light?



> A person writing an ancient text might very well perceive it that way.  I think it is less likely that the omnipotent being that created everything would perceive it that way.  The creator knows the exact function of each part in great detail.


The creator does know the exact functions of each part in great detail, however, the Bible was not written to describe these great details, the prophets were not doing science fair projects. You and I know that the light of the moon is reflection from the sun, it still doesnt take away that "there is a lesser light at night". There was/is a light in the sky at night that is not as bright as the one in the daytime, simple enough. The main point I think being made here is God made all of it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> In your opinion, does one have to state the source of the light to describe the light?
> 
> No, not if they are casually observing a light.  But, I would expect a more accurate description from the creator of the light who is explaining what He created.
> 
> The creator does know the exact functions of each part in great detail, however, the Bible was not written to describe these great details, the prophets were not doing science fair projects. You and I know that the light of the moon is reflection from the sun, it still doesnt take away that "there is a lesser light at night". There was/is a light in the sky at night that is not as bright as the one in the daytime, simple enough. The main point I think being made here is God made all of it.



The underlying motivation for the majority of my "debates" on this forum stem from what I view as a lack of consistency.  I will be thrilled to concede to you that in this situation, God is explaining things in a very simple way that man can understand, if you will concede that in every other place in the Bible, God is explaining things in a very simple way that man can understand.  In other word, I should never hear from you that some things that God relayed to man in the Bible are above our understanding.  I'm not saying that there aren't things about God that we don't understand.  I'm saying that if God attempted to author an instruction book that could be understood by man, then He could accomplish that task.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The underlying motivation for the majority of my "debates" on this forum stem from what I view as a lack of consistency.  I will be thrilled to concede to you that in this situation, God is explaining things in a very simple way that man can understand, if you will concede that in every other place in the Bible, God is explaining things in a very simple way that man can understand.  In other word, I should never hear from you that some things that God relayed to man in the Bible are above our understanding.  I'm not saying that there aren't things about God that we don't understand.  *I'm saying that if God attempted to author an instruction book *that could be understood by man, then He could accomplish that task.



Some things were described not in great detail, like how the sun a moon where made, like I said before, that is not the point of the Bible. God _did_ author an instructional book, just not an instuctional book on what an atom is made of or how the moon looks like a light at night. God instructional Bible does exactly as was intended, show man how to live this life with a relationship with Him and for eternity(along with a host of other living guidlines) but the relationship is the main focus. If you read the Bible, which you clearly do/have, you will have very clear instructions on how to obtain a relationship with your creator.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Some things were described not in great detail, like how the sun a moon where made, like I said before, that is not the point of the Bible. God _did_ author an instructional book, just not an instuctional book on what an atom is made of or how the moon looks like a light at night. God instructional Bible does exactly as was intended, show man how to live this life with a relationship with Him and for eternity(along with a host of other living guidlines) but the relationship is the main focus. If you read the Bible, which you clearly do/have, you will have very clear instructions on how to obtain a relationship with your creator.



Nothing to argue with there, but you did seem to avoid my challenge.  If we agree that God provided mankind with an instruction manual (like how to operate a microwave as opposed to how to build one).  And if we agree that everything that God relayed to us in the Bible is there for a reason, and God intentionally relayed things in a simple manner that can easily be understood by any human of normal intelligence who actually attempts to learn, then would you also agree that there is nothing in the Bible that should be labeled as "beyond man's understanding"?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Nothing to argue with there, but you did seem to avoid my challenge.  If we agree that God provided mankind with an instruction manual (like how to operate a microwave as opposed to how to build one).  And if we agree that everything that God relayed to us in the Bible is there for a reason, and God intentionally relayed things in a simple manner that can easily be understood by any human of normal intelligence who actually attempts to learn, then would you also agree that there is nothing in the Bible that should be labeled as "beyond man's understanding"?



No, nothing directly in the Bible beyond mans understanding, maybe questions coming from what is written, but not the actual text itself. Example, the Holy spirit is in the Bible, we cant break down the Holy spirit, but we know its real.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No, nothing directly in the Bible beyond mans understanding, maybe questions coming from what is written, but not the actual text itself.



Would you be willing to go just a little bit further?  What you wrote COULD be interpreted as nothing more than the words do form sentences that can communicate a message.

I'm speaking of concepts that are derived from scripture.  Some of these concepts are said (by some) to be "beyond man's ability to comprehend or understand".  My focus is on concepts that are widely accepted by many Christians and are "based" upon scripture.  If God attempted to relay those concepts to man in scripture, do you think He would be able to do it in a way that man could understand?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Would you be willing to go just a little bit further?  What you wrote COULD be interpreted as nothing more than the words do form sentences that can communicate a message.
> 
> I'm speaking of concepts that are derived from scripture.  Some of these concepts are said (by some) to be "beyond man's ability to comprehend or understand".  My focus is on concepts that are widely accepted by many Christians and are "based" upon scripture.  If God attempted to relay those concepts to man in scripture, do you think He would be able to do it in a way that man could understand?



If your speaking of concepts, then no, I dont think we can understand every concept written in the Bible, like I said before, I dont think that was the purpose of the Bible. And yes, I do think God _could_ have relayed those certian concepts if that was His purpose through revealing Himself to the world through prophets, again, I dont think that was the purpose.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If your speaking of concepts, then no, I dont think we can understand every concept written in the Bible, like I said before, I dont think that was the purpose of the Bible. And yes, I do think God _could_ have relayed those certian concepts if that was His purpose through revealing Himself to the world through prophets, again, I dont think that was the purpose.



God chose to include into the inspired scripture the concept of the trinity;

1 John 5:7    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

God could have left this out of the divinely inspired scripture if He knew that this concept was too complicated for man to understand.  God chose to include this.  Do you believe that by including this, God was attempting to relay a concept to man in a way that man could understand?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> God chose to include into the inspired scripture the concept of the trinity;
> 
> 1 John 5:7    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
> 
> God could have left this out of the divinely inspired scripture if He knew that this concept was too complicated for man to understand.  God chose to include this.  Do you believe that by including this, God was attempting to relay a concept to man in a way that man could understand?



What if the confusion and contradiction is a test?  

I've heard the argument that God "planted" rocks and fossils  that SEEM to be millions of years old but are in fact 6,000 years old.  There's plenty of scripture warning against over intellectualizing.  

You're lines of questioning confound me, HogJawl.  Do you think that someone here can help reconcile all the blatant errors in the Gospel?  I can't believe that you have struggled with these questions for so long.  It must suck.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> I was just worried you were a 'biologist' from the Discovery Institute or something of that nature.
> 
> Alright, you're a scientist, but that still doesn't make you an authority on evolutionary biology. Not saying you've suggested you were, but the times you mentioned your profession were also times when the topic was about evolution or creation - And I'm reading between the lines.



I am however an authority on Scientific Method.  It does not lead to answers as you have assumed that it does.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

JFS said:


> Can you define "figured out"?  If we don't understand how traits are passed between generations and we learn more about genetics, haven't we figured out how traits are passed by our describing genes and DNA?   Yes, we are describing a process that preceded our observations, but if we undertakes processes that reveal previously unknown information and that knowledge provides a logical and predictive framework, what is that?



It is asking more questions. For example, molecular theory gave way to atomic theory, then sub atomic theory, then quark theory, then string theory. All these "answers" just lead us further down the rabbit hole.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I think for the most part that psychologists have figured out (came to understand) how and why people tend to want to believe in Gods.  I haven't met too many people who believe in God(s) that are aware of this research.



I am aware of it, I believe. Count me as #1.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

JFS said:


> Are earthquakes caused by god's wrath?  Or tectonic plates shifting?   Would ancient goat herders have understood faults and plate tectonics or been inclined to mis-attribute the causes of such events?  I wonder if a scientist could figure it out?



A scientist could describe what he thinks is happening. Face it, it is dark underground.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Says the "scientist" sitting in an air conditioned electrically lit room sending a message over the Internet.



The question at hand is a little deeper than electricity. We have not discovered electricity, we have just described it and learned how to manipulate it.

You ridicule me for being a believer, and now for being a scientist? I see how it goes.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

JFS said:


> Disproven is the wrong word; discredited is better.  Take my earthquake example.  People of the OT era didn't understand plate tectonics.  When the earth shook they viewed that as something god did directly and evidence of god him/her/itself perhaps being angry.  I don't blame them, why else would the ground do such crazy stuff if you don't know?
> 
> But now we know what causes earthquakes, and it is more reasonable to conclude that the people of the OT were not divinely inspired, they were simply wrong in their attribution of the cause of certain events.  Most of us no longer believe hurricanes go around targeting gays either or droughts striking the bad guys. The list goes on and on but I'm sure you get the idea.  Of course you can retreat into some god is the force behind the natural  causes argument and ask me to "prove" it wrong, which is of course impossible, no more than you can prove Brahman or Thor or my favorite garden gnome isn't behind it. But you can't prove it either, and it's not really what those OT people thought.  So the whole fundamental world view that gave rise to scripture is no longer viable.  On a rational and informed basis you would never get there to start with so it isn’t really something we need to disprove, the whole underlying premise is discredited so it never gets to the point of being a tenable proposition worthy of examination.
> 
> But if you are taking bets I'll put $100k on Noah's world flood and extinction being scientifically false.



Once again, science does not prove or disprove anything. It is not part of the scientific method. Why is it so difficult for people to understand the role of science? Which, by the way, is defined by the method itself, not by my or any one else's opinion.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Man and ape evolved from an ape-like creature. Out of necessity and over hundreds of thousands of years, each took their own path to where they are now.



If you are gonna believe it, get the time frame right, try millions.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Anyone ever wonder why we were "created" with Tailbones?



It holds your guts up while you are walking around upright.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Nothing to argue with there, but you did seem to avoid my challenge.  If we agree that God provided mankind with an instruction manual (like how to operate a microwave as opposed to how to build one).  And if we agree that everything that God relayed to us in the Bible is there for a reason, and God intentionally relayed things in a simple manner that can easily be understood by any human of normal intelligence who actually attempts to learn, then would you also agree that there is nothing in the Bible that should be labeled as "beyond man's understanding"?



Operating a microwave and building one are two very different tasks.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> The question at hand is a little deeper than electricity. We have not discovered electricity, we have just described it and learned how to manipulate it.
> 
> You ridicule me for being a believer, and now for being a scientist? I see how it goes.



You're right Mr Scientist, science hasn't figured anything out. The light in your room, the computer you are typing on, the car you drive to work, the medicines you take as a supplement to those oh so worthwhile prayers for healing... the scientific method had nothing to do with any of it. Are there any other authorities here on the scientific method, science, and religion or are you the only one?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> It is asking more questions. For example, molecular theory gave way to atomic theory, then sub atomic theory, then quark theory, then string theory. All these "answers" just lead us further down the rabbit hole.



In other words JFS, if you haven't answered ALL questions, you haven't answered any questions.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> God chose to include into the inspired scripture the concept of the trinity;
> 
> 1 John 5:7    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
> 
> God could have left this out of the divinely inspired scripture if He knew that this concept was too complicated for man to understand.  God chose to include this.  Do you believe that by including this, God was attempting to relay a concept to man in a way that man could understand?



Seems clear enough to me. I am a husband, a father, and a man. Three different entities wrapped up in one.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What if the confusion and contradiction is a test?
> 
> I've heard the argument that God "planted" rocks and fossils  that SEEM to be millions of years old but are in fact 6,000 years old.  There's plenty of scripture warning against over intellectualizing.
> 
> You're lines of questioning confound me, HogJawl.  Do you think that someone here can help reconcile all the blatant errors in the Gospel?  I can't believe that you have struggled with these questions for so long.  It must suck.



Maybe our carbon dating methods don't really work?  The "blantant errors" you speak of are a matter of opinion. Just like I think you are wrong. That is my opinion.

You should start a thread about them.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're right Mr Scientist, science hasn't figured anything out. The light in your room, the computer you are typing on, the car you drive to work, the medicines you take as a supplement to those oh so worthwhile prayers for healing... the scientific method had nothing to do with any of it. Are there any other authorities here on the scientific method, science, and religion or are you the only one?



I venture to say there are more than just me. I am glad to see you finally are begining to understand.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> In other words JFS, if you haven't answered ALL questions, you haven't answered any questions.



Precisely! You are starting to get it!!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Precisely! You are starting to get it!!!!



Oh I do and that is exactly why you are unfit to provide any answers to any questions whatsoever on this forum. You don't possess all of them so you don't possess any. Congrats, you've just disqualified yourself from the discussion.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Oh I do and that is exactly why you are unfit to provide any answers to any questions whatsoever on this forum. You don't possess all of them so you don't possess any. Congrats, you've just disqualified yourself from the discussion.



Your judgement embodies your fear Atlas.

I have come to expect the Pee Wee Herman arguement from you (I know you are, but what am I?),but if I were so wrong, then you would not give my posts a second thought or care.

You have fullfilled the prophecy of the Bible by condemning me to being unfit, and declaring that I cannot speak here.

It is true that I do not possess all or any answers, I leave that to a higher power, but you have no authority over me or this forum. Thus, you may look forward to condemning me more in the future.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> If you are gonna believe it, get the time frame right, try millions.



Excellent, millions of years of evolution it is!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> It holds your guts up while you are walking around upright.



And a remnant of a vestigial structure.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2011)

I'm not condemning you Ted. Just applying your logic to you. I think we can answer questions to a very high degree of certainty. You don't so it doesn't make any sense for you to be here declaring yourself an authority and telling us we can't answer anything. By that logic how did you even draw your conclusion?


----------



## JFS (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Once again, science does not prove or disprove anything. It is not part of the scientific method. Why is it so difficult for people to understand the role of science? .



The scientific method involves the formulation of a hypothesis and empirical experiments to prove the hypothesis true or false.  At its heart the method is entirely about proving things.  

You can say some of the big questions we are debating are not properly subject to the scientific method because they are not testable hypotheses, and that would be true.  But there is a difference between taking the info derived from analytical processes and logically inferring a narrative and clinging to the remnants of tribal mythologies and claiming validity merely because they are not testable hypotheses.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're right Mr Scientist, science hasn't figured anything out. The light in your room, the computer you are typing on, the car you drive to work, the medicines you take as a supplement to those oh so worthwhile prayers for healing... the scientific method had nothing to do with any of it. Are there any other authorities here on the scientific method, science, and religion or are you the only one?


C'mon atlas, give me a break, "Mr. Scientist"? Comments like that make it seem we're arguing with a small school girl. Its his job, if you cant take his word for it, at least have a little faith, geez

And by the way, ted is not the only authority on science in here, why do you think they call it the 'string' theory


ted_BSR said:


> It is asking more questions. For example, molecular theory gave way to atomic theory, then sub atomic theory, then quark theory, then string theory. All these "answers" just lead us further down the rabbit hole.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> The scientific method involves the formulation of a hypothesis and empirical experiments to prove the hypothesis true or false.  At its heart the method is entirely about proving things.


I am sure ted will appreciate the definition of his job! Can you tell us how much he makes, I'm curious?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2011)

String we are dealing with someone who scoffs at the idea that we know more now about our origins than we used to, who says you can't answer any question if you can't answer every question, who compares scientists to religious fanatics, then proceeds to declare himself a scientist and an authority on the scientific method. I'm sorry if that brings out a little sarcasm but I can't take anyone who does this seriously.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

I never knew a scientist that was content with the easy way out.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> The scientific method involves the formulation of a hypothesis and empirical experiments to prove the hypothesis true or false.  At its heart the method is entirely about proving things.
> 
> You can say some of the big questions we are debating are not properly subject to the scientific method because they are not testable hypotheses, and that would be true.  But there is a difference between taking the info derived from analytical processes and logically inferring a narrative and clinging to the remnants of tribal mythologies and claiming validity merely because they are not testable hypotheses.



You are partially correct. The scientific method states that the results of your experiment will either cause you to accept or reject your hypothesis. Then repeat the experiment. There is no mention of truth or falsehood. A test only offers evidence to support, or not support the hypothesis. Any hypothesis is testable, but none is provable.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not condemning you Ted. Just applying your logic to you. I think we can answer questions to a very high degree of certainty. You don't so it doesn't make any sense for you to be here declaring yourself an authority and telling us we can't answer anything. By that logic how did you even draw your conclusion?



My degree and job title declare me to be an authority, it is not self applied.

How can you apply my logic to me when you don't know what it is, or if it even exists?

And you do condemn me. Don't make snarky comments and then back down. Whatever your reasoning is, please, stick to your guns.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> String we are dealing with someone who scoffs at the idea that we know more now about our origins than we used to, who says you can't answer any question if you can't answer every question, who compares scientists to religious fanatics, then proceeds to declare himself a scientist and an authority on the scientific method. I'm sorry if that brings out a little sarcasm but I can't take anyone who does this seriously.



As if anyone takes you seriously Atlas.

_You are obviously a genius and we hang on your every comment?_

A little full of ourselves aren't we?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And a remnant of a vestigial structure.



Is there any fossil evidence to support that hypothesis? I would be interested to be made aware of it.


----------



## JFS (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> You are partially correct. The scientific method states that the results of your experiment will either cause you to accept or reject your hypothesis. Then repeat the experiment. There is no mention of truth or falsehood. A test only offers evidence to support, or not support the hypothesis. Any hypothesis is testable, but none is provable.



None is provable absolutely.  But once you hit a certain level of probability, it's a misuse of language to say things are not proven, which can be applied to less than absolutes.  If you say someone was proven guilty, it means the preponderance of the evidence points to a certain conclusion with a sufficient degree of certainty, not absolute certainty.

Which travels faster in standard atmospheric conditions, light or sound?  Can we say it's been proven light travels faster?  Say yes and it refutes your position. Say no and it reveals the ridiculousness of your position.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> None is provable absolutely.  But once you hit a certain level of probability, it's a misuse of language to say things are not proven, which can be applied to less than absolutes.  If you say someone was proven guilty, it means the preponderance of the evidence points to a certain conclusion with a sufficient degree of certainty, not absolute certainty.
> 
> Which travels faster in standard atmospheric conditions, light or sound?  Can we say it's been proven light travels faster?  Say yes and it refutes your position. Say no and it reveals the ridiculousness of your position.



"preponderance" meaning majority. Who defines the acceptable level of preponderance to state that something is proven? Our legal system is a poor poor comparison of the absolute truth, by any measure.

In the fashion of Descartes, I say that light and or sound have never been proven to exist at all, let alone travel through anything, for you are asleep, and so am I. This is the ridiculousness of my position, and the flaw with yours.


----------



## JFS (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> "preponderance" meaning majority. Who defines the acceptable level of preponderance to state that something is proven? Our legal system is a poor poor comparison of the absolute truth, by any measure.
> 
> In the fashion of Descartes, I say that light and or sound have never been proven to exist at all, let alone travel through anything, for you are asleep, and so am I. This is the ridiculousness of my position, and the flaw with yours.



Finally, something we can agree on!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> Finally, something we can agree on!



Very Very well said. Have you been taking lessons from the others?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Is there any fossil evidence to support that hypothesis? I would be interested to be made aware of it.



I'll check on the tail/fossil evidence. The body has a few vestigial organs that serve little or no purpose now. At one time they probably have served a greater purpose. Why create a being with parts they do not need?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I'll check on the tail/fossil evidence. The body has a few vestigial organs that serve little or no purpose now. At one time they probably have served a greater purpose. Why create a being with parts they do not need?



Who says you don't need it? It holds your guts in. That sounds important to me?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> "preponderance" meaning majority. Who defines the acceptable level of preponderance to state that something is proven? Our legal system is a poor poor comparison of the absolute truth, by any measure.
> 
> In the fashion of Descartes, I say that light and or sound have never been proven to exist at all, let alone travel through anything, for you are asleep, and so am I. This is the ridiculousness of my position, and the flaw with yours.



Do you believe this?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Do you believe this?



I believe it is possible, but I have no proof.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Is there any fossil evidence to support that hypothesis? I would be interested to be made aware of it.





ted_BSR said:


> Who says you don't need it? It holds your guts in. That sounds important to me?



Geeze, what happens to the guts when people have it surgically removed? Besides the tailbone there are other examples of vestigial organs/structures in the body like wisdom teeth, pointed canines, nipples on males, body hair, plica semilunaris(nicitating membrane remnant of a 3rd eyelid).
Some whales have small remnants of a pelvic bone.

How about some living fossils:
http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/india_babytail.jpg

http://evolutionfun.com/images/content/human_tail8.jpg


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Geeze, what happens to the guts when people have it surgically removed? Besides the tailbone there are other examples of vestigial organs/structures in the body like wisdom teeth, pointed canines, nipples on males, body hair, plica semilunaris(nicitating membrane remnant of a 3rd eyelid).
> Some whales have small remnants of a pelvic bone.
> 
> How about some living fossils:
> ...



Well you found those pictures on the internet, so I guess I have to believe they are real.

Deconversion in progress!

Come on bro, really?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Well you found those pictures on the internet, so I guess I have to believe they are real.
> 
> Deconversion in progress!
> 
> Come on bro, really?



Well being I do not make a habit of taking and collecting pics of humans with tails I had to use the internet. And it only took me 2 seconds to find to boot!  I have been waiting 40 years for ANY proof from the creation side. Please tell me you deny that humans are born with tails occasionally.

Honestly, I doubt a human fossil will ever be found that has an actual tail with vertebrae because in the millions of years it took for humans and apes to evolve from a common ancestor, the actual tail was long gone. It was no longer needed for balance. 

Any thoughts about the other vestigial organs I included? Whichever ones you want to disprove....Humans, whales, snakes???


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> Finally, something we can agree on!



Think the resident "scientist" and self proclaimed authority would be retreating into nihilism if science confirmed the biblical account?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

OOOOPS, maybe I was wrong....Check out the tailbone X-Ray a little way down the page.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/vestiges.htm#Bar-Maor_etal1980


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> OOOOPS, maybe I was wrong....Check out the tailbone X-Ray a little way down the page.
> 
> http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/vestiges.htm#Bar-Maor_etal1980



Dang, now I totally believe!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Think the resident "scientist" and self proclaimed authority would be retreating into nihilism if science confirmed the biblical account?



You don't have to put it in quotes Atlas. It is true, I have proof. It is not self proclaimed, and the proof did not come from a talking donkey. Sleep tight.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2011)

I am not here to convert anyone Ted.

If someone tells me a tribe of pygmies lived in a cave 10,000years ago and then they show me 3ft tall skeletons, tools, cave drawings and items taken from that cave, I tend to believe it.
If someone tells me a man survived inside of a whale, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, 2(or 4 or 7?? depends on what passage) of EVERY animal took the Love Boat for a sail and 8 people repopulated the earth in a few thousand years, well ya better start showing me some proof.....not some words in a book.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> You don't have to put it in quotes Atlas. It is true, I have proof. It is not self proclaimed, and the proof did not come from a talking donkey. Sleep tight.



Really? Something that you can now prove? With what? A piece of paper? Can't prove light travels faster than sound or that there even are such things but you can prove you're a scientist. How convenient. The quotes are well earned in your case.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Really? Something that you can now prove? With what? A piece of paper? Can't prove light travels faster than sound or that there even are such things but you can prove you're a scientist. How convenient. The quotes are well earned in your case.



Back to the Pee Wee Herman defense I see. Boring.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am not here to convert anyone Ted.
> 
> If someone tells me a tribe of pygmies lived in a cave 10,000years ago and then they show me 3ft tall skeletons, tools, cave drawings and items taken from that cave, I tend to believe it.
> If someone tells me a man survived inside of a whale, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, 2(or 4 or 7?? depends on what passage) of EVERY animal took the Love Boat for a sail and 8 people repopulated the earth in a few thousand years, well ya better start showing me some proof.....not some words in a book.



How did we go from a discussion about my opinion on the fallibilty of science to all the biblical stories you just threw out there?  You have made a lot of assumptions and put a lot of words in my mouth. I am not trying to convince you that all those biblical stories are true, just that science does not answer the questions most people believe it does.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 18, 2011)

You asked for proof before that, and I gave you the best I could find. Your replies were of deconversion and that I changed your beliefs.( tongue in cheek no doubt)
OF WHAT? Were you talking about changing your beliefs and deconversion in the fallibility of science there?

My reply/replies are for anyone that wants to get a feel for  where I am coming from and to give them an idea of what I expect if they want me to take their replies seriously.

In your case, I can agree that science is not an EXACT science, but for me it is a heck of a lot easier to form an opinion based off of facts and hypothesis and levels of probability, rather than no facts, no hypothesis, and no levels of probability like many religions are based off of.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You asked for proof before that and I gave you the best I could find. Your replies were of deconversion and that I changed your beliefs.
> OF WHAT? Were you talking about the fallibility of science there?
> 
> My reply/replies are for anyone that wants to get a feel for  where I am coming from and to give them an idea of what I expect if they want me to take their replies seriously.
> ...



Fair enough, I appreciate your candor. I do see where you are coming from.

I apologize if I am a little jaded by others that post here just to mock others.

In my defense, the facts, the hypotheses, and the levels of probability support my stance as much as any other. It is just a factor of one's belief that lends support for one's beliefs. As in, some don't believe the Bible, some don't believe the theory of evolution, some don't believe we are awake, some don't believe that science holds the absolute truth. We believe the facts that support our beliefs, across the board, this is true, no matter what you believe or don't believe. Somewhere out there is the Absolute Truth. It is elusive, immense, frightening, and absolute. The human condition is far more intricate than we give it credit for.

Peace, Ted


----------



## bullethead (Mar 18, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Fair enough, I appreciate your candor. I do see where you are coming from.
> 
> I apologize if I am a little jaded by others that post here just to mock others.
> 
> ...



Now that is something I can appreciate and respect.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Now that is something I can appreciate and respect.



The feeling is mutual. Can you believe all this stemmed from the OP?

"If everyone originated from 2 people... 
Then why doesnt everyone look like their inbred?"

Funny how we can get all worked up over a post like that!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 18, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> The feeling is mutual. Can you believe all this stemmed from the OP?
> 
> "If everyone originated from 2 people...
> Then why doesnt everyone look like their inbred?"
> ...



Hey, I'm from the Hard Coal Region of Pennsylvania and there are some areas where it would be hard to convince an outsider that everyone here did not originate from 2 people.....talk about inbred!!!!!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Hey, I'm from the Hard Coal Region of Pennsylvania and there are some areas where it would be hard to convince an outsider that everyone here did not originate from 2 people.....talk about inbred!!!!!!!



Thought it was a southern thing!

My mom and her family are from Lehighton.

Gotta marry out of state to ensure the genes are mixen right (Pop was from New York)!

Scots, Italians, and Dutch.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 18, 2011)

Maroon and White, Maroon and White, deez are da colors for viich ve fight. Lehighton is 12 miles from me.

Tamaqua here!


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 18, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> In my defense, the facts, the hypotheses, and the levels of probability support my stance as much as any other. It is just a factor of one's belief that lends support for one's beliefs.



Ted is attempting to place his religion on the same plane of rationality as science. It simply isn't true that the facts equally support one side or the other of the debate.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 18, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I believe it is possible, but I have no proof.



Do you use this notion as an operating principle ever?  



atlashunter said:


> Ted is attempting to place his religion on the same plane of rationality as science. It simply isn't true that the facts equally support one side or the other of the debate.



Thank goodness is doesn't do any harm, except perhaps when he votes.  I have a friend who sees ghosts.  Good for him.  It doesn't effect me but I can't really consider him as a fully sensible person.  In a crisis, I wouldn't want him leading the team.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Ted is attempting to place his religion on the same plane of rationality as science. It simply isn't true that the facts equally support one side or the other of the debate.



I am actually trying to separate the two planes Atlas. The facts are conveniently, whatever you believe them to be.

I tire of your childish one-ups-manship.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Mar 18, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I tire of your childish one-ups-manship.



but yet you want the last word??  


Who is childish now?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Do you use this notion as an operating principle ever?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness is doesn't do any harm, except perhaps when he votes.  I have a friend who sees ghosts.  Good for him.  It doesn't effect me but I can't really consider him as a fully sensible person.  In a crisis, I wouldn't want him leading the team.



So, you want to drag politics into the "Inbred Thread". Rest assured that I vote my friend.

What harm do you speak of? Could I possibly screw up your entitlements?

I am pretty good in a crisis; you may need me before it is over, but I would not venture to lead your team.

I think I have figured it out. Atlas is the blonde in your avatar! It makes perfect sense.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> but yet you want the last word??
> 
> 
> Who is childish now?



Popcorn and stick poking. I think it is you P&Y who is the MOST childish.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Mar 18, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Popcorn and stick poking. I think it is you P&Y who is the MOST childish.



Well, i got yelled at the last time i did not include a smiley of some sort in my post.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2011)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> Well, i got yelled at the last time i did not include a smiley of some sort in my post.



I respectfully conceed the last word on your own thread to you.
Thanks for giving us something to go on about!

Cheers!


----------



## ADB (May 17, 2011)

So what's next???? If we evolved from monkeys or tadpoles or whatever: A) Why isn't it still happening?
                   B) What do we evolve to next after this current human stage and please do show me the examples of it already happening.
Just another bunch of enviro libs that think they are smarter than everyone else because thay have big vocabularies. JMO..........


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2011)

It IS happening. It happens at a rate so slow it is greater than people can comprehend. look at the size and weights of our children nowadays, Kids in 6-8th grade are the size of grown adults 100years ago. High school football teams  lineman size average bigger thean the '85 Redskins "Hogs". Look around it is happening. To see anything major, check back in another 350,000 years.


----------



## rayjay (May 17, 2011)

As part of the original '2 people....' part of this thread, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from ?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2011)

Yyyyyyyyyep!


----------

