CrackerJax
New Member
Yah, the gold plates are a dead giveaway to a charade.
Luckily, Christians can go see the ten commandments anytime they want.......
out.
Creation Vs. Evolution
- Thread starter matthew
- Start date
Yah, the gold plates are a dead giveaway to a charade.
Luckily, Christians can go see the ten commandments anytime they want.......
out.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
The Earth is the mother of all things, the Sun is the father of all things. Without the 2 we would cease to exist. That is what I believe.
CrackerJax
New Member
And the moon is our child. Let me tell you, that was one hell of a delivery .. C SECTION!!! DEMEROL!!! STAT!!! Mom is very pissed.....
out.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
What you are describing is virtually the definition of Deism, which, BTW, a large number of people would be considered such, even though they are unaware of such a label. There are many evolutionary deists, even in the science world. There is absolutely no conflict between your belief and any science, unlike what we would call a traditional creationist or biblical creationist.
CrackerJax
New Member
The duality of the mind is an evolutionary design. It is difficult not to get sucked into it. Consider it hard wired and the different manifestations (religion, deism, paganism, astrology) are culturally based. All the same root cause however .. evolution.
out.
out.
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
You've been reading Ramachandran about the brain, eh? Epileptic epiphanatic events lead us there.
They're at the courthouse, right? 
C'mon, guys, faith is a pre-requisite for religion, right?
(snerk!)Yah, the gold plates are a dead giveaway to a charade.
Luckily, Christians can go see the ten commandments anytime they want.......
out.
They're at the courthouse, right? C'mon, guys, faith is a pre-requisite for religion, right?
CrackerJax
New Member
I wonder who invented the word faith? Which comes first, the faith or the religion?
Buck buck buck....
Hey Sea (waves)
out.
Buck buck buck....
Hey Sea (waves)
out.
Hand Banana
Well-Known Member
I'd be surprised if anyone said creation on here. What we're doing every day is refining and improving strains of plants through cross pollination and genetic selection. That's the essence of evolution!! The only difference is that humans are deciding what traits should be fostered in the plants, so we can see results faster. Selection in nature occurs over long time scales so that generally we cannot observe it in action.
NomadicSky
Well-Known Member
Yeah it's crazy out there.
As for the polygamy officially the LSD church shuns the practice. Some fringe groups still practice it but not the major church.
And there's more to church. Mormons are never supposed to have any stimulants or mind altering substances of any kind. Not even caffeine.
Gryphonn
Well-Known Member
I'm on the evolution side of the fence. The evidence presented by Darwin in the 1800's is corroborated by evidence in our DNA. The evolutionary link between ape and man in the form of two fused strands of DNA has been found. It is still a theory though, the same as most scientific ideas. Scientists still consider the Law of Gravity as a theory. However, until some other evidence surfaces to refute the 'law', it remains the accepted theory.
I don't accept a theory of some omnipotent god creating the universe and Earth in seven days. I consider that a work of fiction written by people trying to gain or maintain power in a suspicious world. I also can't accept the theory of an omnipotent god creating the earth and universe using evolution as the method. That to me sounds like someone saying, "Evolution? Oh, God created that. God created everything."
However, I have a sneaking suspicion... remember that word ...I don't necessarily believe what I am about to write. It is a theory... that sometime in our not too distant past we may well have become part of an experiment by another intelligence somewhere else in the universe. I have trouble understanding how we could change in intelligence on a global scale almost overnight in relation to our time on the planet.
We went from hunter gatherers with basic needs and and simple agriculture, to a fossil fuel reliant plague in no time compared to how long it took us to stop clubbing animals and eating their raw flesh.
I mean, we have been on this planet as a homonids for 700 000 years. We evolved and diverged from from neanderthals about 400 thousand years ago. Then, for some strange reason about 28 000 years ago. We started becoming more 'intelligent' in terms of creating and discovering. This rise in 'awareness' for want of a better word, has accellerated exponentially since then. Why did we plod along as we were for 300 plus thousand years, then suddenly change? After all, evolution would suggest that our development would advance in reaction to environmental needs, not in spite of them.
Neanderthals died out around 30 000 years ago. Why did they perish when we thrived as a separate species?
Anyways, I've exposed myself as another freak with weird spaceman ideas, so I'll stop now
.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Neanderthals kept evolving and their heads grew too large. The women couldn't birth kids with such giant heads and that slowly killed them off.
We had a jump in evolution caused by eating meat. The meat proteins caused our brains to have a big jump in growth. That's why I laugh at vegetarians, without meat proteins, we'd all still be a bunch of crap flingers.
I have also wondered if we were some other planets "ant farm" , Like maybe an intelligent life form dropped off some of our ancestors here and there around the world to see what we'd do. I bet they're shocked at what assholes we all are !!!
When they come back to check up on us and find out the fat old white men have tried to stamp out the sacred plant (marijuana) they will be pissed and start shooting. Mary Jane help us all when that happens........
We had a jump in evolution caused by eating meat. The meat proteins caused our brains to have a big jump in growth. That's why I laugh at vegetarians, without meat proteins, we'd all still be a bunch of crap flingers.
I have also wondered if we were some other planets "ant farm" , Like maybe an intelligent life form dropped off some of our ancestors here and there around the world to see what we'd do. I bet they're shocked at what assholes we all are !!!
When they come back to check up on us and find out the fat old white men have tried to stamp out the sacred plant (marijuana) they will be pissed and start shooting. Mary Jane help us all when that happens........
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Are you sure about that, Hester? About Neandertal and their demise? You know that, evolutionarily speaking, they were static for tens of thousands of years, yes (at least 100,000yrs)? I've not read of any differences in cranium-to-pelvis proportions in any Neandertal populations.
What I have read of is at least one instance of hypothesized hybridization between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis (or, if you're of the school that believes they were a sub-species of H. sapiens, then there ya go) possibly shown by the Portugese skeletal remains of a 4yo boy.
Their demise has been much more closely tied to the "re-peopling" of Europe by H. sapiens when another push was made out of Africa. The last Neandertals lived about 25,000-30,000 years ago, which is within just a few thousand years of the presence of H. sapiens. This Wiki's pretty decent I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
This vid's about a year old, and the conclusions being spoken of are not agreed upon by all in the field, and there has been subsequent research on Neandertal DNA (from Croatia) since this was published.
[youtube]rfBmFx-g13Q[/youtube]
What I have read of is at least one instance of hypothesized hybridization between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis (or, if you're of the school that believes they were a sub-species of H. sapiens, then there ya go) possibly shown by the Portugese skeletal remains of a 4yo boy.
Their demise has been much more closely tied to the "re-peopling" of Europe by H. sapiens when another push was made out of Africa. The last Neandertals lived about 25,000-30,000 years ago, which is within just a few thousand years of the presence of H. sapiens. This Wiki's pretty decent I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
This vid's about a year old, and the conclusions being spoken of are not agreed upon by all in the field, and there has been subsequent research on Neandertal DNA (from Croatia) since this was published.
[youtube]rfBmFx-g13Q[/youtube]
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Neanderthals Didn't Mate With Modern Humans, Study Says
Ker Than
for National Geographic News
August 12, 2008
Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed, according to a new DNA study.
The research further suggests that small population numbers helped do in our closest relatives.
Researchers sequenced the complete mitochondrial genomegenetic information passed down from mothersof a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal thighbone found in a cave in Croatia. (Get the basics on genetics.)
The new sequence contains 16,565 DNA bases, or "letters," representing 13 genes, making it the longest stretch of Neanderthal DNA ever examined.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is easier to isolate from ancient bones than conventional or "nuclear" DNAwhich is contained in cell nucleibecause there are many mitochondria per cell.
"Also, the mtDNA genome is much smaller than the nuclear genome," said study author Richard Green of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany.
"That's what let us finish this genome well before we finish the nuclear genome," he said.
The new findings are detailed in the August 8 issue of the journal Cell.
A Small Population
The new analysis suggests the last common ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens) and Neanderthals lived between 800,000 and 520,000 years ago. This is consistent with previous work on shorter stretches of Neanderthal DNA.
Contrasted with modern humans, Neanderthals exhibited a greater number of letter substitutions due to mutations in their mitochondrial DNA, although they seem to have undergone fewer evolutionary changes overall.
The fact that so many mutationssome of which may have been harmfulpersisted in the Neanderthal genome could indicate the species suffered from a limited gene pool. This might be because the Neanderthal population was smaller than that of Homo sapiens living in Europe at the time.
A small population size can "diminish the power of natural selection to remove slightly deleterious evolutionary changes," Green said.
The researchers estimate the Neanderthal population living in Europe 38,000 years ago never reached more than 10,000 at any one time.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/95961871.html
This could have been a factor in their demise, Green said.
Homo neanderthalis first appeared in Europe about 300,000 years ago but mysteriously vanished about 35,000 years ago, shortly after the arrival of modern humansHomo sapiensin Europe.
"If there were only a few, small bands of Neanderthals, barely hanging on, then any change to their way of life could have been enough to drive them to extinction," Green said.
"One obvious change would have been the introduction of another large hominidmodern humans."
Stepping Forward
Stephen Schuster, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new study should silence a lot of theories about interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans.
The study shows that "at least for the maternal lineage, there are no traceable genetic markers that suggest admixture of Neanderthals and modern humans," he said.
Schuster added that the researchers were exceptionally careful to isolate the Neanderthal DNA.
"Many more precautions were taken to ensure that no contamination with human DNA has flawed the analysis," he said, noting that researchers sequenced each letter about 35 times to be sure of their work.
"This was the weak point of previous reports," said Schuster, who was not involved with the study.
Thomas Gilbert, an ancient DNA expert at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark who also was not involved in the study, called the research a "step forward" and a taste of what might come when the Neanderthal nuclear DNA is finished.
The team's argument that the Neanderthal population was small 38,000 years ago is speculative, Green said, but "it's better than what we could have said before."
Ker Than
for National Geographic News
August 12, 2008
Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed, according to a new DNA study.
The research further suggests that small population numbers helped do in our closest relatives.
- The Genographic Project: Study of the Human Journey
- Neandertals' Last Stand Was in Gibraltar, Study Suggests (September 13, 2006)
- Neandertals Had Big Mouths, Gaped Widely (May 2, 200
Researchers sequenced the complete mitochondrial genomegenetic information passed down from mothersof a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal thighbone found in a cave in Croatia. (Get the basics on genetics.)
The new sequence contains 16,565 DNA bases, or "letters," representing 13 genes, making it the longest stretch of Neanderthal DNA ever examined.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is easier to isolate from ancient bones than conventional or "nuclear" DNAwhich is contained in cell nucleibecause there are many mitochondria per cell.
"Also, the mtDNA genome is much smaller than the nuclear genome," said study author Richard Green of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany.
"That's what let us finish this genome well before we finish the nuclear genome," he said.
The new findings are detailed in the August 8 issue of the journal Cell.
A Small Population
The new analysis suggests the last common ancestor of modern humans (Homo sapiens) and Neanderthals lived between 800,000 and 520,000 years ago. This is consistent with previous work on shorter stretches of Neanderthal DNA.
Contrasted with modern humans, Neanderthals exhibited a greater number of letter substitutions due to mutations in their mitochondrial DNA, although they seem to have undergone fewer evolutionary changes overall.
The fact that so many mutationssome of which may have been harmfulpersisted in the Neanderthal genome could indicate the species suffered from a limited gene pool. This might be because the Neanderthal population was smaller than that of Homo sapiens living in Europe at the time.
A small population size can "diminish the power of natural selection to remove slightly deleterious evolutionary changes," Green said.
The researchers estimate the Neanderthal population living in Europe 38,000 years ago never reached more than 10,000 at any one time.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/95961871.html
This could have been a factor in their demise, Green said.
Homo neanderthalis first appeared in Europe about 300,000 years ago but mysteriously vanished about 35,000 years ago, shortly after the arrival of modern humansHomo sapiensin Europe.
"If there were only a few, small bands of Neanderthals, barely hanging on, then any change to their way of life could have been enough to drive them to extinction," Green said.
"One obvious change would have been the introduction of another large hominidmodern humans."
Stepping Forward
Stephen Schuster, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new study should silence a lot of theories about interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans.
The study shows that "at least for the maternal lineage, there are no traceable genetic markers that suggest admixture of Neanderthals and modern humans," he said.
Schuster added that the researchers were exceptionally careful to isolate the Neanderthal DNA.
"Many more precautions were taken to ensure that no contamination with human DNA has flawed the analysis," he said, noting that researchers sequenced each letter about 35 times to be sure of their work.
"This was the weak point of previous reports," said Schuster, who was not involved with the study.
Thomas Gilbert, an ancient DNA expert at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark who also was not involved in the study, called the research a "step forward" and a taste of what might come when the Neanderthal nuclear DNA is finished.
The team's argument that the Neanderthal population was small 38,000 years ago is speculative, Green said, but "it's better than what we could have said before."
misshestermoffitt
New Member
I can't remember where I read that, but I did read that a theory was that their heads got too large. They had those elongated skulls with the occipital bun on the back.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Clan of the Cave Bear! That was a really good book.
That was a really good book.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Did you read the rest of the series? If book 6 doesn't come out soon I'm going to freak out !!!
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
I think I've read 3 or four of them.None were as good as the first one, IMo.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Well let's see....
Verifiable science versus ancient tribal myths passed down by generations of goat herders.
What is evolution?
Your big brain theory is fascinating. At one time the slavery was a key component to world economy. Based on your logic the slavery in existence today is justified because past empires developed and thrived thanks to slave labor. Cultures evolved and found viable ways to provide economic growth without exploiting slave labor. What does your big brain say in answer to that?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2_2.html
I suppose it never occurred to you that humans have been steadily evolving away from the meat based diet of our pre-homo-sapien forbears. Fortunately and in keeping with that, agricultural technology has progressed so that (like slave labor as an economic engine) meat is no longer a nutritional requirement for humans.
http://veg.ca/content/view/285/113/
I laugh at supermarket hunter/gatherers.
Verifiable science versus ancient tribal myths passed down by generations of goat herders.
What is evolution?
And some are still flinging the crap regardless of their taste for the flesh of dead animals. Apparently evolution came to a grinding halt with meat eaters.
Your big brain theory is fascinating. At one time the slavery was a key component to world economy. Based on your logic the slavery in existence today is justified because past empires developed and thrived thanks to slave labor. Cultures evolved and found viable ways to provide economic growth without exploiting slave labor. What does your big brain say in answer to that?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2_2.html
I suppose it never occurred to you that humans have been steadily evolving away from the meat based diet of our pre-homo-sapien forbears. Fortunately and in keeping with that, agricultural technology has progressed so that (like slave labor as an economic engine) meat is no longer a nutritional requirement for humans.
http://veg.ca/content/view/285/113/
I laugh at supermarket hunter/gatherers.
I believe the Universe, the Earth, and all its life forms was created by the Omnipotent One (OO) eight and a half SECONDS ago.
"But", you say, "there is all this conversation that has taken weeks ... there are fossil records!"
"Aha, OO created all this to test the faithful! The rock-like bones in the earth WITH the appropriate amount of semi-decayed Carbon 14 ... OO put photons in space on a trajectory to APPEAR as though everything is really old...we were even created (by OO) with memories in our head to account for our present psychological state!!!
"But", you say, "there is all this conversation that has taken weeks ... there are fossil records!"
"Aha, OO created all this to test the faithful! The rock-like bones in the earth WITH the appropriate amount of semi-decayed Carbon 14 ... OO put photons in space on a trajectory to APPEAR as though everything is really old...we were even created (by OO) with memories in our head to account for our present psychological state!!!
CrackerJax
New Member
The availability of meat and its consumption have never been higher than today......
out.
out.