Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.

"evolution" is a fact, anyone that argues differently is an idiot.

I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve. If that story were true how do you explain where Asian people came from.

The theory of evolution vs creation is really just a big pong-debate. Uber christians will not be swayed, and those of the scientific mind will not be swayed. It's a matter of faith vs facts. Evolution is science. Creation is a fairy tale, along with ID.

Begin debate of the infinite.

Agreed, I suppose the best way to resolve it is to ask the question: whether fact is > faith

Is this in the wrong forum?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Agreed, I suppose the best way to resolve it is to ask the question: whether fact is > faith And which is fact and which is faith. And if those are mutually exclusive.

Wha...

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
"evolution" is a fact, anyone that argues differently is an idiot.

I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve. If that story were true how do you explain where Asian people came from. Or...if Adam and Ever were Asian, where do `Caucasian people come from?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Wha...

Often fundamentalist Christians try to confuse the issue by claiming that science is based on faith just like religion is. This is based on the idea that all reality is relative and we only know something because of a set of assumptions. They do this while at the same time claiming that their beliefs are absolute.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Often fundamentalist Christians try to confuse the issue by claiming that science is based on faith just like religion is. This is based on the idea that all reality is relative and we only know something because of a set of assumptions. They do this while at the same time claiming that their beliefs are absolute. And Darwinian Fundamentalists claim that science contains no elements of faith, despite the fact that observational science cannot prove how the universe came about.

There is a fundamental difference in ideology, hence the endless debates.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
And Darwinian Fundamentalists claim that science contains no elements of faith, despite the fact that observational science cannot prove how the universe came about.

There is a fundamental difference in ideology, hence the endless debates.

I have no idea what a Darwinian Fundamentalists is.

You are making an assumption: you are assuming that the universe had a beginning. The big band theory only says that at some point in the past the universe was very small. Science is based on observations of nature. Observations of nature are not based on faith.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what a Darwinian Fundamentalists is.

You are making an assumption: you are assuming that the universe had a beginning. The big band theory only says that at some point in the past the universe was very small. Science is based on observations of nature. Observations of nature are not based on faith. One must also make an assumption to say that the universe did not have a beginning.

One cannot observe how the universe came into being, therefore it is not strictly scientific to say, "It was created by an eternal series of contractions and expansions," or "It was created by a god," or, "It was created by cows." These are all faith statements that cannot be observed nor proven. Hence, the irreconcilably of ideologies.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
One must also make an assumption to say that the universe did not have a beginning.

One cannot observe how the universe came into being, therefore it is not strictly scientific to say, "It was created by an eternal series of contractions and expansions," or "It was created by a god," or, "It was created by cows." These are all faith statements that cannot be observed nor proven. Hence, the irreconcilably of ideologies.

If you read what I posted, you will see that I was not making an assumption about the beginning of the universe. I was pointing out your assumption.

How is observations of nature equal to faith?

Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally.

all life on this planet (so far documented) is the offspring of ONE single cell

Originally posted by reece123collins
This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family.

at one point, the population of reproducing human females was reduced to a handful, meaning this is probably true anyways, if the fact that we all come from the same single cellular organism does not mean we are all from the same family.

Originally posted by reece123collins
So where did race,

geographically and family isolated groups of pre-humans

Originally posted by reece123collins
langue,

pre linguistic pointing and gesturing combined with the advantage of more complex grunts as communication devices

Originally posted by reece123collins
traditions,

memes passed to offspring and through transaction, geographically or culturally isolated

Originally posted by reece123collins
origins all come from.

origins of which?

Originally posted by reece123collins
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates

evolution isn't an ability, it is a process. We hypothetically have the ability to evolve into anything that genetic variation allows for in our environment, with the long-term changes being based on which of those varieties were best suited for the environment.

Originally posted by reece123collins
but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something

yes, all lifeforms on the planet share some portion of their DNA, Depending on how closely related the species are. You and I likely have almost identical genes, whereas a chimp would have 90%+ of the same dna. A dog some smaller percentage, followed by bananas and bacteria.

Originally posted by reece123collins
which they have proven through carbon dating or something.

probably more through genetic sequencing, though I'll admit I don't know for sure

Originally posted by reece123collins
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent

human imagination is not subject to limits, however, reality is. There are many things which are impossible.

Originally posted by reece123collins
so really both answers are up for argument.

absolutly not. Creationism or intelligent design are unsubstantiable and errorous. They do not conform to anything approaching science. Rationally, only evolution is "up for argument"

Originally posted by reece123collins
but my personal view is ecolution.

lol, nice

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you read what I posted, you will see that I was not making an assumption about the beginning of the universe. I was pointing out your assumption.

How is observations of nature equal to faith? And if you read my post, you will note that I said nothing about observation of nature being the equivalent of faith. Only that the method of the origin of the universe cannot be proven by observational science. Therefore, the Fundamentalist makes a leap of faith when they say, "It existed eternally."

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

Originally posted by Acrosurge

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.



actually, science doesn't have to explain things it can't possibly...

"I don't know, lets keep looking" is an acceptable answer, thus, science makes no assumptions about anything. It either has the data or does not.

It would however be valid to say "any belief one has about the absolute nature of the origins of the universe is a belief based on faith" then yes. However, all scientific facts could have that said about them, as one of the most important parts to science is the knowledge that its answers are always incomplete. Thus, there are no absolutes in science.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
And if you read my post, you will note that I said nothing about observation of nature being the equivalent of faith. Only that the method of the origin of the universe cannot be proven by observational science. Therefore, the Fundamentalist makes a leap of faith when they say, "It existed eternally."

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

Science does not say that the universe is eternal or not.

Do you not see that by asking the question "how did the universe begin?" you are inserting an assumption that the universe has a beginning?

I have not read that book, but I have heard fundamentalist Christians call evolution Darwinism as if Darwin invented evolution.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, science doesn't have to explain things it can't possibly...

"I don't know, lets keep looking" is an acceptable answer, thus, science makes no assumptions about anything. It either has the data or does not.

It would however be valid to say "any belief one has about the absolute nature of the origins of the universe is a belief based on faith" then yes. However, all scientific facts could have that said about them, as one of the most important parts to science is the knowledge that its answers are always incomplete. Thus, there are no absolutes in science. You have stated better than I.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by Acrosurge

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

as a further note:

in the same book, Sagan describes an alien species who use vehicular interstellar transport as not being able to determine if it is the cars on earth that are alive or if they are vehicles.

so, ya, Sagan was the man, but again, nothing in science is absolute and people can disagree on many things.

For instance, I believe science should be open to anything supernatural provided it can be empirically tested. Give me an experiment that will provide conclusive evidence for the existance of God and my thoughts are that it should be run. Scientists have their own personal philosophies which will absolutly effect the way they perform science, but the scientific method does not require any philosophical commitment, simply empirical evidence upon which predictions can be made and tested.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
You have stated better than I.

I agree completely.

i must have misinterpreted, appologies

Originally posted by inimalist
as a further note:

in the same book, Sagan describes an alien species who use vehicular interstellar transport as not being able to determine if it is the cars on earth that are alive or if they are vehicles.

so, ya, Sagan was the man, but again, nothing in science is absolute and people can disagree on many things.

For instance, I believe science should be open to anything supernatural provided it can be empirically tested. Give me an experiment that will provide conclusive evidence for the existance of God and my thoughts are that it should be run. Scientists have their own personal philosophies which will absolutly effect the way they perform science, but the scientific method does not require any philosophical commitment, simply empirical evidence upon which predictions can be made and tested. Again, I agree absolutely. And it should be noted that Richard Dawkins's credibility has not been injured by his suggestion that aliens created life on Earth.

The term "supernatural" is a strange one. How should one define it?

Originally posted by inimalist
i must have misinterpreted, appologies No apologies necessary. From the beginning, my point has only been that one must make assumptions when it comes to the origin (or alternatively, the eternal nature) of the universe.

well if you wanted a biblical reason for diffrent language,color of skin,traditions etc. you could read in the old testement where it talks about how the people were all the same in those aspects, physical aspects that is. and then they decided they were going to try and build a tower to heaven. when they did this god didnt like it so he spread them through around the world, confusing their tongues and them being put in places like asia, North America, and russia made them have to adapt. this is the incident of the tower of babel.

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
well if you wanted a biblical reason for diffrent language,color of skin,traditions etc. you could read in the old testement where it talks about how the people were all the same in those aspects, physical aspects that is. and then they decided they were going to try and build a tower to heaven. when they did this god didnt like it so he spread them through around the world, confusing their tongues and them being put in places like asia, North America, and russia made them have to adapt. this is the incident of the tower of babel.

And before this happened, what color was the people?

I dont know. I will assume that since this is a middle eastern/jerusalem setting they would have the distinct look of the area.

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
well if you wanted a biblical reason for diffrent language,color of skin,traditions etc. you could read in the old testement where it talks about how the people were all the same in those aspects, physical aspects that is. and then they decided they were going to try and build a tower to heaven. when they did this god didnt like it so he spread them through around the world, confusing their tongues and them being put in places like asia, North America, and russia made them have to adapt. this is the incident of the tower of babel. I don't think this would have much to do with skin color, but it might be applied to the radical differences in linguistic construction between more exotic languages.

Im saying skin color variations because of things like the south americans are closer to the equator...wait;never mind that part really does make no sense to me either haha but I still stand on the other things.starwars

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
Im saying skin color variations because of things like the south americans are closer to the equator...wait;never mind that part really does make no sense to me either haha but I still stand on the other things.starwars

lol

ya, god did it is a pretty complete and nice package to wrap all those difficult questions up in

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
Im saying skin color variations because of things like the south americans are closer to the equator...wait;never mind that part really does make no sense to me either haha but I still stand on the other things.starwars

So, languages did not evolve, but came into existence at one place and time?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, languages did not evolve, but came into existence at one place and time?

god took painstaking care to make them look as if they did when he created them all at once.

Originally posted by inimalist
god took painstaking care to make them look as if they did when he created them all at once.

Which leads to the question of why? But you already knew that.


BTW I know the answer...

yeah....good times good times.

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
yeah....good times good times.

What?

Originally posted by inimalist
god took painstaking care to make them look as if they did when he created them all at once. Languages do evolve. Germanic languages are a perfect example. On the other hand, there are languages that have little linguistic or syntax denominators. Several African languages require additional study, as they should be quite similar to surrounding natives (having descended from common ancestors in the recent past with common communication), but they are not. Several South American native languages are also disimilar from their North American neighbors (also sharing common descent).

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Languages do evolve. Germanic languages are a perfect example. On the other hand, there are languages that have little linguistic or syntax denominators. Several African languages require additional study, as they should be quite similar to surrounding natives (having descended from common ancestors in the recent past with common communication), but they are not. Several South American native languages are also disimilar from their North American neighbors (also sharing common descent).

Anomalies only mean we don't understand the complexity of the evolution... but I digress.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anomalies only mean we don't understand the complexity of the evolution... but I digress. Of course. In this thread, I believe we have already established the incompleteness of scientific knowledge. Therefore, more examination is necessary, possibly to account for factors and data previously unknown or unobserved.

Side note: It is fascinating to me that there is so much discussion of science going on in what is essentially a philosophy thread. I suppose none of us have yet realized that in such an arena, philosophy will trump science every time.

adam and eve, obviously.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What?

I do not know...

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Of course. In this thread, I believe we have already established the incompleteness of scientific knowledge. Therefore, more examination is necessary, possibly to account for factors and data previously unknown or unobserved.

Side note: It is fascinating to me that there is so much discussion of science going on in what is essentially a philosophy thread. I suppose none of us have yet realized that in such an arena, philosophy will trump science every time.

Are we considering etymology and linguistics sciences? I have no problem seeing them as sciences, but I think you mistook shakya's use of evolution in his comment.

Both.
Apes were first, Adam and Eve were the first humans to have walked the earth after evolving from apes.

So, what about Adam and Eveolution?


Hahahaha, oh yeah, I went there, high five, **** yeah. STEVE HOLT!

So only Eve evolved?

Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.

Adam and Eve is about duality, its not literal.

theres alot of possibilities on how life was formed. for all we know we may be a part of the big bang theory. do i believe adam and eve is responsible? maybe. the way i look at life is its a journey. i believe mankind (us) is open to accepting on who created us. im a christian and do i believe god is real? yes because god is faith and everyone has faith even if they dont show it. now what is the main project for mankind? repopulation.

Originally posted by P23
theres alot of possibilities on how life was formed. for all we know we may be a part of the big bang theory. do i believe adam and eve is responsible? maybe. the way i look at life is its a journey. i believe mankind (us) is open to accepting on who created us. im a christian and do i believe god is real? yes because god is faith and everyone has faith even if they dont show it. now what is the main project for mankind? repopulation.

Yes, but there is a big difference between one and the other. One side of the argument strives for scientific proof. The other doesn't think it needs to because it has something called "faith." I agree that we are open to fact and truth. Well, most people; if people find overwhelming evidence of God then I would believe in it.
Not everybody relies on faith, especially if it's faith in God.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Yes, but there is a big difference between one and the other. One side of the argument strives for scientific proof. The other doesn't think it needs to because it has something called "faith." I agree that we are open to fact and truth. Well, most people; if people find overwhelming evidence of God then I would believe in it.
Not everybody relies on faith, especially if it's faith in God.



like i stated the world is capabile of anything. hell when the bible says the end of days i bet we destroy ourselves do to the shit in the mid east. im not saying one thought is right im saying everything is possible.

Originally posted by P23
like i stated the world is capabile of anything. hell when the bible says the end of days i bet we destroy ourselves do to the shit in the mid east. im not saying one thought is right im saying everything is possible.

Considering how well the world has bounced back from "shit in the mid east" through out history I can't see the slightest reason for concern.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering how well the world has bounced back from "shit in the mid east" through out history I can't see the slightest reason for concern. Hmmm. Allow petty, middle east dictators to build functioning, nuclear weapons and watch the fur fry... er, fly.

I meant about causing Armageddon.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Adam and Eve is about duality, its not literal.