Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence for evolution, finally!

Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...

In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey. This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favourites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favourite tree.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2017 9:29:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...


In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey. This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favourites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favourite tree.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

What's even more important Hari is that you and I aren't even fully humans. Only subsaharran Africans are humans. The rest of us are Neanderthal/denisovan hybrids. What do you make of that?
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2017 9:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2017 9:29:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...


In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey. This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favourites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favourite tree.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

What's even more important Hari is that you and I aren't even fully humans. Only subsaharran Africans are humans. The rest of us are Neanderthal/denisovan hybrids. What do you make of that?

Being South Asian I am leaning Denisovan.
Mar 28, 2016 - But a new map of archaic ancestry suggests that many bloodlines around the world, particularly of South Asian descent, may actually be a bit more Denisovan, a mysterious population of hominids.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2017 9:43:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2017 9:40:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:29:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...


In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey. This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favourites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favourite tree.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

What's even more important Hari is that you and I aren't even fully humans. Only subsaharran Africans are humans. The rest of us are Neanderthal/denisovan hybrids. What do you make of that?

Being South Asian I am leaning Denisovan.
Mar 28, 2016 - But a new map of archaic ancestry suggests that many bloodlines around the world, particularly of South Asian descent, may actually be a bit more Denisovan, a mysterious population of hominids.

I hope they find a Full Denisovan fossil, it would be interesting to see what they looked like.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2017 9:51:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2017 9:43:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:40:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:29:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...


In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey. This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favourites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favourite tree.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

What's even more important Hari is that you and I aren't even fully humans. Only subsaharran Africans are humans. The rest of us are Neanderthal/denisovan hybrids. What do you make of that?

Being South Asian I am leaning Denisovan.
Mar 28, 2016 - But a new map of archaic ancestry suggests that many bloodlines around the world, particularly of South Asian descent, may actually be a bit more Denisovan, a mysterious population of hominids.

I hope they find a Full Denisovan fossil, it would be interesting to see what they looked like.

They must have carried good genes.
https://www.facebook.com...
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 1:01:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Diversity of species is a fact and makes even more sense it was caused by evolution and not adaptation.

Even the bible supports evolution of species. The talking serpent from the Garden of Eden evolved to Satan and ruler of the world. Even Jesus confirmed Satan's presence.

Matthew 4:1-11New King James Version (NKJV)

Satan Tempts Jesus
4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

4 But He answered and said, "It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.""[a]

5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

"He shall give His angels charge over you,"
and,

"In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.""[b]
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God.""[c]

8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."

10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you,[d] Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.""[e]

11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Evolution is supported both by the Bible and science. So there is your evidence for evolution, finally!
Willows
Posts: 11,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 2:52:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2017 1:01:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Diversity of species is a fact and makes even more sense it was caused by evolution and not adaptation.

Even the bible supports evolution of species. The talking serpent from the Garden of Eden evolved to Satan and ruler of the world. Even Jesus confirmed Satan's presence.

Matthew 4:1-11New King James Version (NKJV)

Satan Tempts Jesus
4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

4 But He answered and said, "It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.""[a]

5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

"He shall give His angels charge over you,"
and,

"In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.""[b]
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God.""[c]

8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."

10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you,[d] Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.""[e]

11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Evolution is supported both by the Bible and science. So there is your evidence for evolution, finally!

You mean, your half-cocked distorted, twisted evidence.
Quite honestly, do you expect anyone with half a brain to go along with such a feeble attempt at pulling the wool?

And you know very well what the "God gene" is....you have been pulled up on that one before.

Or are you trying to jump on the pre-school reverse psychology bandwagon with Illegal Combat?

Whichever way, keep wearing the white (plastic) shoes and tacky gold (plated) jewellery and you may get a job as a Tele-evangelist. The sort of audiences that fall for that crap will really make you millions.

I would offer to be your manager but I do need to sleep at night.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 1:37:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2017 2:52:22 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/27/2017 1:01:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Diversity of species is a fact and makes even more sense it was caused by evolution and not adaptation.

Even the bible supports evolution of species. The talking serpent from the Garden of Eden evolved to Satan and ruler of the world. Even Jesus confirmed Satan's presence.

Matthew 4:1-11New King James Version (NKJV)

Satan Tempts Jesus
4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

4 But He answered and said, "It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.""[a]

5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

"He shall give His angels charge over you,"
and,

"In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.""[b]
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God.""[c]

8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."

10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you,[d] Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.""[e]

11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Evolution is supported both by the Bible and science. So there is your evidence for evolution, finally!

You mean, your half-cocked distorted, twisted evidence.
Quite honestly, do you expect anyone with half a brain to go along with such a feeble attempt at pulling the wool?

And you know very well what the "God gene" is....you have been pulled up on that one before.

Or are you trying to jump on the pre-school reverse psychology bandwagon with Illegal Combat?

Whichever way, keep wearing the white (plastic) shoes and tacky gold (plated) jewellery and you may get a job as a Tele-evangelist. The sort of audiences that fall for that crap will really make you millions.

I would offer to be your manager but I do need to sleep at night.

Does the bible not say Satan started out as a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden. God cursed the serpent and said you will crawl on your belly all your life. And just like the evolution of monkeys from tree dwellers (arboreal) took to bipedalism as apes, Satan too evolved to challenge Jesus upright to become the ruler of the world.

The parallels in the Bible and Darwins theory validate evolution.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 2:28:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.


You gotta trust me here, I'm saying this with the greatest respect and politeness possible: Your claim of "It makes absolutely no sense" is itself nonsense. Non-sense. What basis could you possibly have for speculating on the purpose of the creator, if not some apparent purpose inferred from the creation, in while case, it does make some kind of sense?

And in fact you contradict yourself: You say "no apparent reason at all" but then claim an apparent reason - the existence of man. If making species harmful to man seems counterproductive to you, then you are in fact assuming a purpose.

Now, I think there is a valid point lurking in there. To suppose that some sort of spontaneous variation was/is part of the process - sure, that's quite sensible. The error evolutionists always make is to fail to distinguish between the technically feasible process of variation based upon pre-existing information, and the black magic claim of the spontaneous emergence of said information in the first place.
This space for rent.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 2:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 2:28:55 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.


You gotta trust me here, I'm saying this with the greatest respect and politeness possible: Your claim of "It makes absolutely no sense" is itself nonsense. Non-sense. What basis could you possibly have for speculating on the purpose of the creator, if not some apparent purpose inferred from the creation, in while case, it does make some kind of sense?

And in fact you contradict yourself: You say "no apparent reason at all" but then claim an apparent reason - the existence of man. If making species harmful to man seems counterproductive to you, then you are in fact assuming a purpose.

Now, I think there is a valid point lurking in there. To suppose that some sort of spontaneous variation was/is part of the process - sure, that's quite sensible. The error evolutionists always make is to fail to distinguish between the technically feasible process of variation based upon pre-existing information, and the black magic claim of the spontaneous emergence of said information in the first place.

So you aren't arguing evolution but abiogenesis, for clarity, and as usual for believers, you seem to be assigning this presumed Supreme Genius Creator the title of your own personal God. There's no connective tissue so far: if I grant that something 'created' the very first form of life from which even you seem to recognize diversity arose (otherwise you're going to get a question on how you explain the fossil record, and why this creator genius created something that would go extinct in the first place), how can we get any further than that? To go from Genius Creator to Christian God requires quite a bit of very difficult bridge building. First, you have to argue that because there's a creator, it cares about us in some way, and then in the way that the Bible apparently describes that god (so it cares if you eat pork or shellfish, and if you're gay, or if you have sex outside of marriage) so as to rule out all of the other gods. Then you'd have to prove that this creator god also means there's an afterlife, plus a heaven and a hell (if that's what your sect believes. not sure).

Evolution happens every single day, there's evidence all over the place (and not the kind that "is true if you believe it" or "if you only open your eyes").
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 3:10:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 2:48:40 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 2:28:55 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.


You gotta trust me here, I'm saying this with the greatest respect and politeness possible: Your claim of "It makes absolutely no sense" is itself nonsense. Non-sense. What basis could you possibly have for speculating on the purpose of the creator, if not some apparent purpose inferred from the creation, in while case, it does make some kind of sense?

And in fact you contradict yourself: You say "no apparent reason at all" but then claim an apparent reason - the existence of man. If making species harmful to man seems counterproductive to you, then you are in fact assuming a purpose.

Now, I think there is a valid point lurking in there. To suppose that some sort of spontaneous variation was/is part of the process - sure, that's quite sensible. The error evolutionists always make is to fail to distinguish between the technically feasible process of variation based upon pre-existing information, and the black magic claim of the spontaneous emergence of said information in the first place.

So you aren't arguing evolution but abiogenesis,

Nope.

for clarity, and as usual for believers, you seem to be assigning this presumed Supreme Genius Creator the title of your own personal God.

Nope. I mean, I do presume creator = God, but I didn't do that in my post.

There's no connective tissue so far: if I grant that something 'created' the very first form of life

Just forget the textbook tale of evolution. Let's just work with the evidence. Take it from the top.

from which even you seem to recognize diversity arose

Well, I certainly observe that I don't look exactly like either my mother or father. So yes, variation is clearly built into the reproductive system.

(otherwise you're going to get a question on how you explain the fossil record,

That's easy - the fossil record is a collection of dead animals that got preserved in mud or equivalent.

and why this creator genius created something that would go extinct in the first place),

Well, why don't we ask why anything at all exists instead of nothing while we're at it.

how can we get any further than that? To go from Genius Creator to Christian God requires quite a bit of very difficult bridge building.

Yes, it does. And you'll have to step outside of science to historical, spiritual, textual, and other sorts of evidence if you want to pursue that.


Evolution happens every single day,

Bullsh*t. Just gotta call it straight here, man. You know bloody well that this is equivocation, an attempt to mix to completely different definitions of one word. I obviously am not debating anything that's observable, so do we really have to do the game playing every time this subject is discussed?
This space for rent.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 3:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 3:10:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:

So you aren't arguing evolution but abiogenesis,

Nope.


So are you or aren't you arguing that life changes form over time? If the answer is it doesn't change over time, then you're arguing evolution. If you're arguing where did it come from, that's abiogenesis. The latter has far more difficult answers, all of them theoretical. Evolution, on the contrary, is just a fact of life, and is supported by thousands of repeatable studies and other scientific evidence and literally hundreds of millions of years of fossil records as well as observations within life today.

for clarity, and as usual for believers, you seem to be assigning this presumed Supreme Genius Creator the title of your own personal God.

Nope. I mean, I do presume creator = God, but I didn't do that in my post.


So yes, and yes, it is to this point totally unsupported. I'd ask you to draw some connection between the two, but you've only answered that once, and it was with the less than compelling "because that's what makes the most sense to me."


from which even you seem to recognize diversity arose

Well, I certainly observe that I don't look exactly like either my mother or father. So yes, variation is clearly built into the reproductive system.


Exactly, this is an evolutionary change. Extrapolate this single generational difference over the course of hundreds of millions of years, and this is how life diversifies, it's how speciation works.

(otherwise you're going to get a question on how you explain the fossil record,

That's easy - the fossil record is a collection of dead animals that got preserved in mud or equivalent.


and why this creator genius created something that would go extinct in the first place),

Well, why don't we ask why anything at all exists instead of nothing while we're at it.


Not the definition of the fossil record: why it exists. If the creator, in your case God, created everything in its final form (this, in fact, is the definition of creation, there is no biblical support for the position that hundreds of millions of years ago God created something and it grew into the diverse biosphere we see today, that's retconned apologetics...it's trying to have the cake and eat it too). The why something rather than nothing question is not in any way related to evolution. The fossil record, where we see the distant relatives of every species we see on earth today, IS related to evolution.

how can we get any further than that? To go from Genius Creator to Christian God requires quite a bit of very difficult bridge building.

Yes, it does. And you'll have to step outside of science to historical, spiritual, textual, and other sorts of evidence if you want to pursue that.


There is no such thing as spiritual evidence. So we'll leave that one. Please show me the historical documents or historical support that says we are not only created, but history shows it was by your version of God. Textually, you'd have to have an independent source (i.e. not anything related to Christendom) corroborating the 'creation' of life. Is there any document like that?


Evolution happens every single day,

Bullsh*t. Just gotta call it straight here, man. You know bloody well that this is equivocation, an attempt to mix to completely different definitions of one word. I obviously am not debating anything that's observable, so do we really have to do the game playing every time this subject is discussed?

You yourself note that you do not look like your parents. The changing of life over time is evolution by definition. But you can apply the principle to lots of things. Technology, free markets, social mores. even religion itself, evolves in response to the environment, just like life does.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 3:54:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 3:30:51 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:10:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:

So you aren't arguing evolution but abiogenesis,

Nope.


So are you or aren't you arguing that life changes form over time? If the answer is it doesn't change over time, then you're arguing evolution. If you're arguing where did it come from, that's abiogenesis.

Darwin didn't define his "original forms" very clearly, but presumably they didn't have eyes, for instance, since he describes the evolution of the eye. So the evolution of the eye would clearly involve the spontaneous creation of vast amounts of information. So the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is largely sophistry, not science. It's a way to dodge the overwhelming preposterousness of the overall claim.

The latter has far more difficult answers, all of them theoretical. Evolution, on the contrary, is just a fact of life,

yeah, sorry, but we just can't have a reasonable conversation if you're not going to see the difference between the observed variation inherent in reproduction, and the hypothesis that all of the ecosystem spontaneously emerged by this process and only this process. Otherwise it's the equivalent of calling tech support and getting somebody who just 'reads the manual' to you. I don't think you really understand the claims of evolution at a conceptual level, just to be honest with you.


Exactly, this is an evolutionary change. Extrapolate this single generational difference over the course of hundreds of millions of years, and this is how life diversifies, it's how speciation works.


That's the hypothesis. Can you really see that this is only a hypothesis, neither observed nor reproduced?

If the creator, in your case God, created everything in its final form

No, let's follow the evidence and logic one step at a time. It's very bad thinking to bounce off the walls like this. I, me, v3nesl, I never said God created everything in its final form. I'm not sure that statement even means anything upon close examination. In these threads I generally try to focus on two simple facts: Life is pretty clearly a designed system, and mutation is an absurdly inadequate alternate explanation for the ecosystem. I think we all have to find the intellectual courage to face immediate realities before moving on to other issues.

The fossil record, where we see the distant relatives of every species we see on earth today,

No, you don't see "distant relatives". You see the remains of dead animals. Let's be clear about what the data actually is.


There is no such thing as spiritual evidence. So we'll leave that one.

Great - so if you don't know about something, it just doesn't exist. lol! That pretty much torpedoes science too. You never looked through the telescope, so you'll be damned if you're going to believe what they say they saw.
This space for rent.
rextr05
Posts: 2,061
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 3:58:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense

(Your opinion that has no scientific basis)

that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...


In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey.

Oops, you'll have to be a bit more, no a great deal more, specific re this one. Please refer to exact chapter & verses.

This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favorites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favorite tree.

Your opinion, or is this what biblical reserchers also believe?

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Nope, they were supposed fallen angels. A big reason God had all the people killed in the Flood. Gen 6:1-7.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

Gotta get me some of whatever you're drinking Hari ..............

Thing is, you're leaving out the all important fact that "The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes. (Smithsonian Museum Genetics)

So, we have just learned that the slightest difference in genomes, equates to a HUGE difference in species. Maybe if you would have offered something other than your own personal opinion, your comment would have SOUNDED a bit more credible.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 4:09:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 3:54:06 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:30:51 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:10:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:


Darwin didn't define his "original forms" very clearly, but presumably they didn't have eyes, for instance, since he describes the evolution of the eye. So the evolution of the eye would clearly involve the spontaneous creation of vast amounts of information. So the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is largely sophistry, not science. It's a way to dodge the overwhelming preposterousness of the overall claim.


Not spontaneous. GRADUAL. Like in the extreme. The cell is more sensitive tolight, thereby granting the microbe better chances at resources than those without the same sensitivity, the reproduction of light-sensitive microbes gradually (NOT SPONTANEOUSLY, spontaneity is never claimed save in the single instance of initial differentiation) starts to outpace the non-light-sensitive microbes, gradually, over hundreds of thousands of generations, and eventually (NOT SUDDENLY) the non-light sensitive ones are extinct, in favor of the light sensitive. Now these light sensitive microbes reproduce and eventually the ones with more sensitivity start to outpace those with less...and on and on it goes. The eye's a terrible example for your argument by the way, we've observed something like 40 different kinds of eyes evolve across species.

The latter has far more difficult answers, all of them theoretical. Evolution, on the contrary, is just a fact of life,

yeah, sorry, but we just can't have a reasonable conversation if you're not going to see the difference between the observed variation inherent in reproduction, and the hypothesis that all of the ecosystem spontaneously emerged by this process and only this process. Otherwise it's the equivalent of calling tech support and getting somebody who just 'reads the manual' to you. I don't think you really understand the claims of evolution at a conceptual level, just to be honest with you.


Again the problem you're having is the part where it's spontaneous. If it were, it would be unimaginable (essentially this is the creationist's argument, though). The ecosystem, by which I assume you mean life, not the actual environment to which many other celestial factors contribute over the 4 billion years of earth's history, has tons of evidence in the fossil record for its evolution, even plant life. I'm pretty sure it's you that doesn't understand evolution on any level, because you keep saying you believe in changes over time and then say but not evolution. THAT IS EVOLUTION. You just can't observe a hundred million years' worth in your lifetime, so therefore you think all of the evidence is false somehow. If it's because it makes God unnecessary you still have demonstrated absolutely zero connection between Genius Creator and the god of V3nal. Please do so.

Exactly, this is an evolutionary change. Extrapolate this single generational difference over the course of hundreds of millions of years, and this is how life diversifies, it's how speciation works.


That's the hypothesis. Can you really see that this is only a hypothesis, neither observed nor reproduced?


It's observed all the time, you just want it to be a crockoduck. It's microscopic and gradual, but it can be observed in microbes.

No, let's follow the evidence and logic one step at a time.

Rich!

It's very bad thinking to bounce off the walls like this. I, me, v3nesl, I never said God created everything in its final form. I'm not sure that statement even means anything upon close examination. In these threads I generally try to focus on two simple facts: Life is pretty clearly a designed system, and mutation is an absurdly inadequate alternate explanation for the ecosystem. I think we all have to find the intellectual courage to face immediate realities before moving on to other issues.

The first of your simple facts is a supposition and poorly founded, and the second fatis argument from incredulity. Perhaps part of your issue is that you seem to literally misunderstand what a fact is? Appealing to magic and calling it courage is...erroneous.

The fossil record, where we see the distant relatives of every species we see on earth today,

No, you don't see "distant relatives". You see the remains of dead animals. Let's be clear about what the data actually is.


Which data is that? The DNA data? It doesn't help your argument at all: even if you go on to claim DNA is some sort of genius code intentionally put there (which you'd have to demonstrate) it doesn't advance the ball toward YOUR GOD or any religious implication at all. Not without connection, sorry.


There is no such thing as spiritual evidence. So we'll leave that one.

Great - so if you don't know about something, it just doesn't exist. lol! That pretty much torpedoes science too. You never looked through the telescope, so you'll be damned if you're going to believe what they say they saw.

Fine, please provide "spiritual evidence," but I also asked directly for the OTHER more empirical evidence that you seem to imply exists.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 4:16:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 2:28:55 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.


You gotta trust me here, I'm saying this with the greatest respect and politeness possible: Your claim of "It makes absolutely no sense" is itself nonsense. Non-sense. What basis could you possibly have for speculating on the purpose of the creator, if not some apparent purpose inferred from the creation, in while case, it does make some kind of sense?

Try to make sense of why 99 percent amounting to over 5 billion species have gone extinct. What is the rational behind creating billions of species only to have them go extinct.

"More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described."

Why is it that humans makes better tree climbers than apes and Chimpanzees have better cognitive skills than humans?

Man beats chimpanzee in tree climbing test.
https://youtu.be...

Chimpanzee beats humans in cognitive tests.
https://youtu.be...

And in fact you contradict yourself: You say "no apparent reason at all" but then claim an apparent reason - the existence of man. If making species harmful to man seems counterproductive to you, then you are in fact assuming a purpose.

Now, I think there is a valid point lurking in there. To suppose that some sort of spontaneous variation was/is part of the process - sure, that's quite sensible. The error evolutionists always make is to fail to distinguish between the technically feasible process of variation based upon pre-existing information, and the black magic claim of the spontaneous emergence of said information in the first place.

Evolutionists have distinguished the difference and called them micro and macro evolution. Creationist on the ither hand believe each were created in its own kind.

The creationist view has been long debunked. Eg dogs will only produce dogs, cats only cats. Each can only produce their own kind.

But creationist forget dog and cats are final products of evolution. They like humans can also be traced to a common ancestor.

Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is
Published January 15, 2014 5:22pm
By MIKAEL ANGELO FRANCISCO
http://www.gmanetwork.com...

Given how cats seem to have so much trouble getting down from trees, it must be embarrassing for them to admit that their prehistoric ancestor was a tree-dweller.

New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes " carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels " were recently uncovered by scientists in the village of Dormaal (after which the animal"s genus was named) in Belgium.

The researchers examined the newly discovered specimens closely, providing a clearer look at the characteristics of the Eocene-era creature, as well as shedding light on the evolutionary development of today"s warm-blooded carnivores.

"Its description allows better understanding of the origination, variability and ecology of the earliest carnivoraforms," explained study lead Dr Flor"al Sol", a paleontologist from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels. The team"s findings were published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

A tree of knowledge

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

The scientists were able to confirm that 280 of the nearly 14,000 teeth specimens that they found in Dormaal"s soil belonged to the ancient tree mammal. Remarkably, the team even found an entire row of the pint-sized prehistoric predator"s deciduous ("baby") teeth. This was a big step up from previous searches, which only yielded two of the carnivore"s upper molars.

Based on the scientists" findings, the primitive structure and age of Dormaalocyon"s teeth places it very close to the carnivoraforms" evolutionary roots. Carnivoraforms lived during the Paleocene (66-55 million years ago) and Eocene (56-33.9 million years ago) epochs, and are believed to have originated in Europe.

"The understanding of the origination of the carnivoraforms is important for reconstructing the adaptation of placental mammals to carnivorous diet," remarked Dr Sol".

Dr Sol"s team also discovered a few samples of Dormaalocyon"s ankle bones, which revealed that the creature spent most of its time scurrying from tree to tree in the warm, humid woodlands of its time. This supposedly occurred after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), an extremely warm period of time that affected the evolution of carnivoraforms and other mammalian groups.

According to Dr Sol", Dormaalocyon"s arboreal (tree-dwelling) nature "supports the existence of a continuous evergreen forest belt at high latitudes during the PETM," especially since carnivoraforms began spreading to North America during this period.

Paws-itively primitive

In an interview with LiveScience, Sol" confirmed that Dormaalocyon "is one of the oldest carnivorous mammals which is related to present-day carnivores."

Much like its domesticated descendants, Dormaalocyon wasn"t Tyrannosaurus rex-levels of terrifying. "It wasn't frightening. It wasn't dreadful," assured Sol". Dormaalocyon is described to have looked like a cross "between a tiny panther and a squirrel, with a long tail and a catlike snout."

However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon"s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.

Additionally, the new discoveries reveal the possibility that carnivoraforms may have actually originated from Asia, spreading through Europe and then reaching North America.
"Therefore, Dormaalocyon provides information concerning the evolution of placental mammals after the disappearance of the largest dinosaurs (at the Cretaceous"Paleogene extinction event," observed Dr Sol". "Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene."

Common ancestors of Man.
Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 4:29:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 4:09:56 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:54:06 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:30:51 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:10:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:


Darwin didn't define his "original forms" very clearly, but presumably they didn't have eyes, for instance, since he describes the evolution of the eye. So the evolution of the eye would clearly involve the spontaneous creation of vast amounts of information. So the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is largely sophistry, not science. It's a way to dodge the overwhelming preposterousness of the overall claim.


Not spontaneous.

In science, "spontaneous" means (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause. It doesn't mean "in a short time". The 'short time' meaning derives from the idea of doing something without adequate thought, so it's still the lack of external cause that is the essence of the word.

So anyhow, I don't think I want to beat my head against the wall all over again redundantly. So y'all have yourselves a nice weekend.
This space for rent.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 4:40:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 3:58:33 PM, rextr05 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense

(Your opinion that has no scientific basis)

It is not an opinion. It is an observed fact. Diversification of species is a fact. In fact scientists have offered an explanation for this phenomenon. They called it evolution.

that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

That is also a fact...I.e the absurdity of the creationist view that God created billions of species only to see them go extinct.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...


In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey.

Oops, you'll have to be a bit more, no a great deal more, specific re this one. Please refer to exact chapter & verses.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
The first primates were New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. So God looked like a monkey in the beginning.

This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favorites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favorite tree.

Your opinion, or is this what biblical reserchers also believe?

Being of the early monkey kind tree dwellers (arboreal) God was naturally obsessed with trees. Scriptures prove that to be a fact.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Nope, they were supposed fallen angels. A big reason God had all the people killed in the Flood. Gen 6:1-7.

The bible proved mutations were possible. You just agreed!!

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

Gotta get me some of whatever you're drinking Hari ..............

Biblical scholarship and banana eating atheists friends.

Thing is, you're leaving out the all important fact that "The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes. (Smithsonian Museum Genetics)

That was caused by the introduction of the God gene.

So, we have just learned that the slightest difference in genomes, equates to a HUGE difference in species. Maybe if you would have offered something other than your own personal opinion, your comment would have SOUNDED a bit more credible.

I gave you links that I used as part of my research. So now you have it. They were not my opinions alone.
Goldtop
Posts: 6,990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 4:56:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 4:29:18 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 4:09:56 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:54:06 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:30:51 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:10:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:


Darwin didn't define his "original forms" very clearly, but presumably they didn't have eyes, for instance, since he describes the evolution of the eye. So the evolution of the eye would clearly involve the spontaneous creation of vast amounts of information. So the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is largely sophistry, not science. It's a way to dodge the overwhelming preposterousness of the overall claim.


Not spontaneous.

In science, "spontaneous" means (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause. It doesn't mean "in a short time". The 'short time' meaning derives from the idea of doing something without adequate thought, so it's still the lack of external cause that is the essence of the word.

So anyhow, I don't think I want to beat my head against the wall all over again redundantly. So y'all have yourselves a nice weekend.

Your discussion here is just like all your other ones on evolution, you deny it in favor of creationism, then everyone else tries to explain it to you, but you just keep denying until someone eventually corners you and then you leave. So, it's odd that you are the one complaining about beating your head against the wall considering all you do is deny.

Yes, have a nice weekend. I'm going to see a killer r&b band tonight.
rextr05
Posts: 2,061
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 5:02:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 4:40:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:58:33 PM, rextr05 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense

(Your opinion that has no scientific basis)

It is not an opinion. It is an observed fact. Diversification of species is a fact. In fact scientists have offered an explanation for this phenomenon. They called it evolution.

No, it's the " It makes absolutely no sense," quote from you that I directed that at.

that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

That is also a fact...I.e the absurdity of the creationist view that God created billions of species only to see them go extinct.

If it is a "fact" as you say, please offer some supporting scholarly researched material. Just cuz you say it is, means only you use your own opinion. Not valid.

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...


In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey.

Oops, you'll have to be a bit more, no a great deal more, specific re this one. Please refer to exact chapter & verses.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
The first primates were New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. So God looked like a monkey in the beginning.

Quite a jump there, Hari. Just cuz you say so ...... huh?

This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favorites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favorite tree.

Your opinion, or is this what biblical researchers also believe?

Being of the early monkey kind tree dwellers (arboreal) God was naturally obsessed with trees. Scriptures prove that to be a fact.

Obsessed? & you make that jump right?!? Wowie.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Nope, they were supposed fallen angels. A big reason God had all the people killed in the Flood. Gen 6:1-7.

The bible proved mutations were possible. You just agreed!!

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

Gotta get me some of whatever you're drinking Hari ..............

Biblical scholarship and banana eating atheists friends.

& you are considered a biblical scholar by whose standards? Qualifications please .....

Thing is, you're leaving out the all important fact that "The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes. (Smithsonian Museum Genetics)

That was caused by the introduction of the God gene.

I'm not fighting you re evolution, I'm just wanting where you've gotten to your conclusion other than "your interpretation of the bible," which we all know is very far out there & most times way off base.

So, we have just learned that the slightest difference in genomes, equates to a HUGE difference in species. Maybe if you would have offered something other than your own personal opinion, your comment would have SOUNDED a bit more credible.

I gave you links that I used as part of my research. So now you have it. They were not my opinions alone.

Well, if you would have included unbiased & scholarly peer reviewed material, like the "ncbi" one above, I would not have questioned what you have written here. But referring to a previous 'debate.org' forum posting, a blog, or a nature publishing does not qualify whatsoever, even if I tend to agree with some of what is said therein.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 5:13:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 4:29:18 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 4:09:56 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:54:06 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:30:51 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:10:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:


Darwin didn't define his "original forms" very clearly, but presumably they didn't have eyes, for instance, since he describes the evolution of the eye. So the evolution of the eye would clearly involve the spontaneous creation of vast amounts of information. So the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is largely sophistry, not science. It's a way to dodge the overwhelming preposterousness of the overall claim.


Not spontaneous.

In science, "spontaneous" means (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause. It doesn't mean "in a short time". The 'short time' meaning derives from the idea of doing something without adequate thought, so it's still the lack of external cause that is the essence of the word.

So anyhow, I don't think I want to beat my head against the wall all over again redundantly. So y'all have yourselves a nice weekend.

This is exactly the same ending as every other discussion where you deny it, that's why I want to change the target: if I grant that an external cause (leaving aside that you take this to exclusively mean a thinking agent with superpowers) DID kickstart life, in spite of the many more sensible explanations, can you get from that cause to, in this order, a sentient being, a god, then a personal and interventionist god who performs miracles and smites his enemies, then to YOUR god, which I assume is Jesus?

See what I mean? I'd even allow the introduction of spiritual evidence, provided you could define what that is. I'm sure it has to be more compelling than personal revelation, though, because I could just as easily say it was personally revealed to me, by Darth Vader, that The Force exists, and you can't prove otherwise, just you don't believe hard enough. In other words, he finds your lack of faith disturbing.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 6:27:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 5:02:23 PM, rextr05 wrote:
At 7/28/2017 4:40:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 3:58:33 PM, rextr05 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense

It is not an opinion. It is an observed fact. Diversification of species is a fact. In fact scientists have offered an explanation for this phenomenon. They called it evolution.

No, it's the " It makes absolutely no sense," quote from you that I directed that at.

Does it make sense for God to create billions of species only to see them go extinct? Absolutely not!!! Billions of species have gone extinct making their creation absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous.
that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

That is also a fact...I.e the absurdity of the creationist view that God created billions of species only to see them go extinct.

If it is a "fact" as you say, please offer some supporting scholarly researched material. Just cuz you say it is, means only you use your own opinion. Not valid.

Billions of species have gone extinct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Evolution gives us a logical explanation of how macro evolution began that led to the diversification of species and between randomness and natural selection the fittest species survived and those less adaptable faded into extinction. Thus giving us the variety of life we see today.

But is there evidence for the evolution of God and Man, where science meets religion?

I present my research papers on a unified theory that bridges the divide.

The evolution of God and man. Harikrish.
http://www.debate.org...

In the beginning Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Humans along with gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as the great apes. And since Adam was made in the image of God at the beginning of evolution. God and Adam looked like monkeys more specifically Old World Monkeys.

We all descended from a common female ancestor.

"In 1987, a group of genet"icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature." The" researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."
Obviously it took an Adam to make that happen. For that there is the Y Chromosome.

Evidence of Adam and Eve coexisting.
http://www.nature.com...

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey.

Oops, you'll have to be a bit more, no a great deal more, specific re this one. Please refer to exact chapter & verses.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
The first primates were New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. So God looked like a monkey in the beginning.

Quite a jump there, Hari. Just cuz you say so ...... huh?

What was the appearence of the early primates precursors to modern humans that God created in his image....monkeys.

This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favorites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favorite tree.

Your opinion, or is this what biblical researchers also believe?

Being of the early monkey kind tree dwellers (arboreal) God was naturally obsessed with trees. Scriptures prove that to be a fact.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Nope, they were supposed fallen angels. A big reason God had all the people killed in the Flood. Gen 6:1-7.

The bible proved mutations were possible. You just agreed!!

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

You agreed fallen angels took on daughters of humans creating mutants/hybrids.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

Gotta get me some of whatever you're drinking Hari ..............

Biblical scholarship and banana eating atheists friends.

& you are considered a biblical scholar by whose standards? Qualifications please .....

My Vedantic training including training in comparative religion.

Thing is, you're leaving out the all important fact that "The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA

That was caused by the introduction of the God gene.

I'm not fighting you re evolution, I'm just wanting where you've gotten to your conclusion other than "your interpretation of the bible," which we all know is very far out there & most times way off base.

I provide supporting scriptures.

So, we have just learned that the slightest difference in genomes, equates to a HUGE difference in species. Maybe if you would have offered something other than your own personal opinion, your comment would have SOUNDED a bit more credible.

I gave you links that I used as part of my research. So now you have it. They were not my opinions alone.
rextr05
Posts: 2,061
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 6:50:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 6:27:56 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 5:02:23 PM, rextr05 wrote:

The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense

It is not an opinion. It is an observed fact. Diversification of species is a fact. In fact scientists have offered an explanation for this phenomenon. They called it evolution.

No, it's the " It makes absolutely no sense," quote from you that I directed that at.

Does it make sense for God to create billions of species only to see them go extinct? Absolutely not!!! Billions of species have gone extinct making their creation absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous.

What makes sense to one, does not mandate what makes sense to another. It's all opinion. But that's not the point you were making. You referred to "diversification of species" & that's what I asked about re your opinion, not fact.

that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

That is also a fact...I.e the absurdity of the creationist view that God created billions of species only to see them go extinct.

If it is a "fact" as you say, please offer some supporting scholarly researched material. Just cuz you say it is, means only you use your own opinion. Not valid.

Billions of species have gone extinct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

& ......? Please don't use Wikipedia as a reference. Not reliable.

snipped

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey.

Oops, you'll have to be a bit more, no a great deal more, specific re this one. Please refer to exact chapter & verses.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
The first primates were New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. So God looked like a monkey in the beginning.

Quite a jump there, Hari. Just cuz you say so ...... huh?

What was the appearence of the early primates precursors to modern humans that God created in his image....monkeys.

That's what I was asking you to prove re early monkeys to God. there's still a huge gap re God being a monkey as you insist. So, you're saying that you know God evolved as a monkey & billions of years ago, this monkey/god created the universe right?

This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favorites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favorite tree.

Your opinion, or is this what biblical researchers also believe?

Being of the early monkey kind tree dwellers (arboreal) God was naturally obsessed with trees. Scriptures prove that to be a fact.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Nope, they were supposed fallen angels. A big reason God had all the people killed in the Flood. Gen 6:1-7.

The bible proved mutations were possible. You just agreed!!

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

You agreed fallen angels took on daughters of humans creating mutants/hybrids.

No, I just stated what the bible says, not what I believe. But if they had ..... they had & God had 'taken care of that.'

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

Gotta get me some of whatever you're drinking Hari ..............

Biblical scholarship and banana eating atheists friends.

& you are considered a biblical scholar by whose standards? Qualifications please .....

My Vedantic training including training in comparative religion.

Yet, not a biblical scholar then, only a skeptic. Now I see why you are such an antagonist re the Christian God/Jesus.

Thing is, you're leaving out the all important fact that "The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA

That was caused by the introduction of the God gene.

I'm not fighting you re evolution, I'm just wanting where you've gotten to your conclusion other than "your interpretation of the bible," which we all know is very far out there & most times way off base.

I provide supporting scriptures.

From a skeptics point of view, which has much bias, & w/o having a biblical scholarly expertise. All of your bible verse interpretations show this negative bias. Please don't tell us you are a biblical scholar anymore cuz that's just untrue ...... given your background study.

So, we have just learned that the slightest difference in genomes, equates to a HUGE difference in species. Maybe if you would have offered something other than your own personal opinion, your comment would have SOUNDED a bit more credible.
FollowerofChrist1955
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 7:05:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
And to think, that DESPITE the mountain of drivel, you inundated us with. Yet not a SINGLE scientific, fact can be shown where a single species, BECAME a distinctly different Species. All hypothesis, not a fact in the bunch.

That's because to distinctly different species CANNOT procreate. They MUST be within the lineage of the species to procreate. That alone bust your theory.

No Monkey from man, no man from monkey, no cat from dog, no mouse from snake, no hippo from crocodile..... your theory is alas defunct.

And let's not forget that Science even today has no Living example of a Microbe crawling out of ANY KIND OF OOZE to inhabit what all call REAL Living creatures eh?

All microscopic has REMAINED microscopic and SEPARATE from the Living condition of awareness, self sustainment, baby producing ... by egg etc..

I understand you deep desire to not believe in God ... pity, that isn't changing your slot in Hell. Still going there, even if you don't believe it. Unless you snap out of your slumber before? Well, you'll see.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 7:17:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 6:50:26 PM, rextr05 wrote:
At 7/28/2017 6:27:56 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 5:02:23 PM, rextr05 wrote:

The most obvious evidence for evolution is the diversification of species. It makes absolutely no sense

It is not an opinion. It is an observed fact. Diversification of species is a fact. In fact scientists have offered an explanation for this phenomenon. They called it evolution.

No, it's the " It makes absolutely no sense," quote from you that I directed that at.

Does it make sense for God to create billions of species only to see them go extinct? Absolutely not!!! Billions of species have gone extinct making their creation absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous.

What makes sense to one, does not mandate what makes sense to another. It's all opinion. But that's not the point you were making. You referred to "diversification of species" & that's what I asked about re your opinion, not fact.

Diversification of species is a fact and not an opinion. Diverfication of species is a product of evolution because it makes absolutely no logical sense that God would create billions of species only to see them go extinct.
To clarify my statement. Christisns may find it logical for God to create billions of species only to see them go extinct because they see God as illogical. If he could send a giant flood to destroy every creature that existed to punish imperfect humans. Nothing would be beyond God no matter how illogical it would appear to others.

that God created millions of species for no apparent reason at all, making many species ever harmful to the existence of man.

That is also a fact...I.e the absurdity of the creationist view that God created billions of species only to see them go extinct.

If it is a "fact" as you say, please offer some supporting scholarly researched material. Just cuz you say it is, means only you use your own opinion. Not valid.

Billions of species have gone extinct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

& ......? Please don't use Wikipedia as a reference. Not reliable.

snipped

Basics: Becoming Human, Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam
http://biologos.org...

Scriptural evidence for an evolving God

If you go by Genesis's timeline. God had not fully evolved so he was still a monkey more specifically Old World Monkey.

Oops, you'll have to be a bit more, no a great deal more, specific re this one. Please refer to exact chapter & verses.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
The first primates were New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. So God looked like a monkey in the beginning.

Quite a jump there, Hari. Just cuz you say so ...... huh?

What was the appearence of the early primates precursors to modern humans that God created in his image....monkeys.

That's what I was asking you to prove re early monkeys to God. there's still a huge gap re God being a monkey as you insist. So, you're saying that you know God evolved as a monkey & billions of years ago, this monkey/god created the universe right?

When God created the first primates in his image they were monkeys. Modern Humans evolved millions of years later.

This explains the early mistakes God made with creation, the talking serpent, the flood and his obsession with trees being arboreal. Tree of knowledge and tree of life were his favorites. Now you know why he was so upset when Adam and Eve messed with his favorite tree.

Your opinion, or is this what biblical researchers also believe?

Being of the early monkey kind tree dwellers (arboreal) God was naturally obsessed with trees. Scriptures prove that to be a fact.

Somebody asked where does Jesus fall into this equation?

Scientists have discovered the God Gene which explains how faith is hardwired in our genes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So how did the God Gene get into the human genome?

Scriptures give us some clue as to how both Jesus and the God Gene falls into this equation.

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

We finally have the evidence that mutations produce viable life. Jesus is the product of a mutant gene. And before him we have scriptural evidence the sons of God married the daughters of men.

Nope, they were supposed fallen angels. A big reason God had all the people killed in the Flood. Gen 6:1-7.

The bible proved mutations were possible. You just agreed!!

You agreed fallen angels took on daughters of humans creating mutants/hybrids.

No, I just stated what the bible says, not what I believe. But if they had ..... they had & God had 'taken care of that.'

That is why my research combines scriptural evidence with scientific evidence.

Who were the "sons of God" who married "the daughters of men" and had children who were giants in Genesis 6: 2-4.

So why do we have atheists among us?
The same reason we still have monkeys today. Both have proven to be highly adaptable.

Gotta get me some of whatever you're drinking Hari ..............

Biblical scholarship and banana eating atheists friends.

& you are considered a biblical scholar by whose standards? Qualifications please .....

My Vedantic training including training in comparative religion.

Yet, not a biblical scholar then, only a skeptic. Now I see why you are such an antagonist re the Christian God/Jesus.

Comparative religion includes Christian Theology and Islamic fundamentalist among other religions.

Thing is, you're leaving out the all important fact that "The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA

That was caused by the introduction of the God gene.

I'm not fighting you re evolution, I'm just wanting where you've gotten to your conclusion other than "your interpretation of the bible," which we all know is very far out there & most times way off base.

I provide supporting scriptures.

From a skeptics point of view, which has much bias, & w/o having a biblical scholarly expertise. All of your bible verse interpretations show this negative bias. Please don't tell us you are a biblical scholar anymore cuz that's just untrue ...... given your background study.

I have stated many times I am a Vedantist raised in the Vedantic tradition and trained in the reading of esoteric scriptures, Christian Theology and Islamic fundamentalism.

So, we have just learned that the slightest difference in genomes, equates to a HUGE difference in species. Maybe if you would have offered something other than your own personal opinion, your comment would have SOUNDED a bit more credible.
I offered a unified theory by combining scriptures and science as evidence for evolution, finally.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 7:30:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 7:05:20 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
And to think, that DESPITE the mountain of drivel, you inundated us with. Yet not a SINGLE scientific, fact can be shown where a single species, BECAME a distinctly different Species. All hypothesis, not a fact in the bunch.

That's because to distinctly different species CANNOT procreate. They MUST be within the lineage of the species to procreate. That alone bust your theory.

No Monkey from man, no man from monkey, no cat from dog, no mouse from snake, no hippo from crocodile..... your theory is alas defunct.

And let's not forget that Science even today has no Living example of a Microbe crawling out of ANY KIND OF OOZE to inhabit what all call REAL Living creatures eh?

All microscopic has REMAINED microscopic and SEPARATE from the Living condition of awareness, self sustainment, baby producing ... by egg etc..

I understand you deep desire to not believe in God ... pity, that isn't changing your slot in Hell. Still going there, even if you don't believe it. Unless you snap out of your slumber before? Well, you'll see.

You have no concept of evolutionary timelines. There is less interbreeding between species today because the species we find today are the finished products of evolution. Because of natural selection only the most fittest and adaptable species survived. Many intermediary species went extinct giving us the final products of our time.

Dogs and cats are final products of evolution. They like humans also can be traced to a common ancestor.

Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is
Published January 15, 2014 5:22pm
By MIKAEL ANGELO FRANCISCO
http://www.gmanetwork.com...

Given how cats seem to have so much trouble getting down from trees, it must be embarrassing for them to admit that their prehistoric ancestor was a tree-dweller.

New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes " carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels " were recently uncovered by scientists in the village of Dormaal (after which the animal"s genus was named) in Belgium.

The researchers examined the newly discovered specimens closely, providing a clearer look at the characteristics of the Eocene-era creature, as well as shedding light on the evolutionary development of today"s warm-blooded carnivores.

"Its description allows better understanding of the origination, variability and ecology of the earliest carnivoraforms," explained study lead Dr Flor"al Sol", a paleontologist from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels. The team"s findings were published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

A tree of knowledge

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

The scientists were able to confirm that 280 of the nearly 14,000 teeth specimens that they found in Dormaal"s soil belonged to the ancient tree mammal. Remarkably, the team even found an entire row of the pint-sized prehistoric predator"s deciduous ("baby") teeth. This was a big step up from previous searches, which only yielded two of the carnivore"s upper molars.

Based on the scientists" findings, the primitive structure and age of Dormaalocyon"s teeth places it very close to the carnivoraforms" evolutionary roots. Carnivoraforms lived during the Paleocene (66-55 million years ago) and Eocene (56-33.9 million years ago) epochs, and are believed to have originated in Europe.

"The understanding of the origination of the carnivoraforms is important for reconstructing the adaptation of placental mammals to carnivorous diet," remarked Dr Sol".

Dr Sol"s team also discovered a few samples of Dormaalocyon"s ankle bones, which revealed that the creature spent most of its time scurrying from tree to tree in the warm, humid woodlands of its time. This supposedly occurred after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), an extremely warm period of time that affected the evolution of carnivoraforms and other mammalian groups.

According to Dr Sol", Dormaalocyon"s arboreal (tree-dwelling) nature "supports the existence of a continuous evergreen forest belt at high latitudes during the PETM," especially since carnivoraforms began spreading to North America during this period.

Paws-itively primitive

In an interview with LiveScience, Sol" confirmed that Dormaalocyon "is one of the oldest carnivorous mammals which is related to present-day carnivores."

Much like its domesticated descendants, Dormaalocyon wasn"t Tyrannosaurus rex-levels of terrifying. "It wasn't frightening. It wasn't dreadful," assured Sol". Dormaalocyon is described to have looked like a cross "between a tiny panther and a squirrel, with a long tail and a catlike snout."

However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon"s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.

Additionally, the new discoveries reveal the possibility that carnivoraforms may have actually originated from Asia, spreading through Europe and then reaching North America.
"Therefore, Dormaalocyon provides information concerning the evolution of placental mammals after the disappearance of the largest dinosaurs (at the Cretaceous"Paleogene extinction event," observed Dr Sol". "Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene."

Common ancestors of Man.
Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.
FollowerofChrist1955
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 8:17:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 7:30:36 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 7:05:20 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Again ... enough with the fantasy.

Show US , a single example page, website, Scientist, experiment with link ... anything which SHOWS that a microscopic Microbe or bacteria, CROSSED from the microscopic too the sentient Life you describe. You know, The SPECIES your referring too? All Real, All alive, all self sustaining, all producing babies, tiny replicas of the adults, which GROW, to reproduce eggs and procreate?

But .... I know you can't. You'll just keep coming back with ..... but, but, but.
No evidence, No website that shows any creature just opinions Like yours ... they too will not be able to lead you to a living creature that crawled out of the microscopic ooze, neither now nor BILLIONS of years ago. Because it didn't and NEVER did HAPPEN!

Though I do understand your gullibility.... really!
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 8:44:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 8:17:48 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/28/2017 7:30:36 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 7:05:20 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Again ... enough with the fantasy.

Show US , a single example page, website, Scientist, experiment with link ... anything which SHOWS that a microscopic Microbe or bacteria, CROSSED from the microscopic too the sentient Life you describe. You know, The SPECIES your referring too? All Real, All alive, all self sustaining, all producing babies, tiny replicas of the adults, which GROW, to reproduce eggs and procreate?

But .... I know you can't. You'll just keep coming back with ..... but, but, but.
No evidence, No website that shows any creature just opinions Like yours ... they too will not be able to lead you to a living creature that crawled out of the microscopic ooze, neither now nor BILLIONS of years ago. Because it didn't and NEVER did HAPPEN!

Though I do understand your gullibility.... really!

You are asking for an experiment in a lab to demonstrate evolutionary process when species development take millions of years and extreme conditions to cause genetic drift.

On a lesser scale:
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
https://www.newscientist.com...
FollowerofChrist1955
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 11:38:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 8:44:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 8:17:48 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/28/2017 7:30:36 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 7:05:20 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Again ... enough with the fantasy.

Show US , a single example page, website, Scientist, experiment with link ... anything which SHOWS that a microscopic Microbe or bacteria, CROSSED from the microscopic too the sentient Life you describe. You know, The SPECIES your referring too? All Real, All alive, all self sustaining, all producing babies, tiny replicas of the adults, which GROW, to reproduce eggs and procreate?

But .... I know you can't. You'll just keep coming back with ..... but, but, but.
No evidence, No website that shows any creature just opinions Like yours ... they too will not be able to lead you to a living creature that crawled out of the microscopic ooze, neither now nor BILLIONS of years ago. Because it didn't and NEVER did HAPPEN!

Though I do understand your gullibility.... really!

You are asking for an experiment in a lab to demonstrate evolutionary process when species development take millions of years and extreme conditions to cause genetic drift.

On a lesser scale:
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
https://www.newscientist.com...

Wrong again ... I'm asking you to prove your statement or admit evolution is and always will be false. The reason is plain. No creature or experiment by scientists of any century has been ABLE to produce a living creature or species, by microorganism to living biological. NONE. That means evolution never occurred at all. Creatures Never formed from microorganisms EVER. that leaves ONLY the supernatural.

All life was created AS ADULTS.... that's why creatures Birth from eggs only. That's why only adults can produce the egg, and that's how mankind came into creation ... by the creator Himself. True you can refuse it, but you cannot disprove it. As the near future is going to show. God was real all along,
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 11:44:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2017 11:38:15 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/28/2017 8:44:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 8:17:48 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/28/2017 7:30:36 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/28/2017 7:05:20 PM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
At 7/26/2017 9:14:39 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Again ... enough with the fantasy.

Show US , a single example page, website, Scientist, experiment with link ... anything which SHOWS that a microscopic Microbe or bacteria, CROSSED from the microscopic too the sentient Life you describe. You know, The SPECIES your referring too? All Real, All alive, all self sustaining, all producing babies, tiny replicas of the adults, which GROW, to reproduce eggs and procreate?

But .... I know you can't. You'll just keep coming back with ..... but, but, but.
No evidence, No website that shows any creature just opinions Like yours ... they too will not be able to lead you to a living creature that crawled out of the microscopic ooze, neither now nor BILLIONS of years ago. Because it didn't and NEVER did HAPPEN!

Though I do understand your gullibility.... really!

You are asking for an experiment in a lab to demonstrate evolutionary process when species development take millions of years and extreme conditions to cause genetic drift.

On a lesser scale:
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
https://www.newscientist.com...

Wrong again ... I'm asking you to prove your statement or admit evolution is and always will be false. The reason is plain. No creature or experiment by scientists of any century has been ABLE to produce a living creature or species, by microorganism to living biological. NONE. That means evolution never occurred at all. Creatures Never formed from microorganisms EVER. that leaves ONLY the supernatural.

All life was created AS ADULTS.... that's why creatures Birth from eggs only. That's why only adults can produce the egg, and that's how mankind came into creation ... by the creator Himself. True you can refuse it, but you cannot disprove it. As the near future is going to show. God was real all along,

A microorganism IS biological life.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.