Evolution vs Religion

Dragons, and dragon like creatures are part of every mythology.
The Babylonian goddess Tiamat was a dragon, the Shen-long, Quetzalcoatl, the Hydra, The Midgard serpent, the Basilisk, the Paisa Bird.
All of these are dragons or dragon like creatures, Possibly based on fossils that may have been found. A long time ago people thought diferently than we do today, You have to interprate things from their perspective. There was no study or investigation by ancient people, at best they found something and just made up stories about it. No ancient civilization is talking about dinosaurs when they mention dragons. They are talking about dragons.
The Bible was clearly written by mortal man and not a god of any kind.
If it was the infallible word of God we would not have Genesis contradicting the creation of man.

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm

The early Christian church was all for science and learning, they were the ones who ran the schools, and funded scientific studies. I don't know exactly when they had the massive brain fart that caused them to think science was evil, but I can't help but think if it had never happened Evolution would just be seen as another miracle of god. Why couldn't God, or whatever you want to call it have made evolution?

 

thanks for brining somthing to the table. The reason why God didn't make us from monkeys is..
Genesis 2:7-7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Also if we did evolve from monkeys why aren't monkeys's still evolving?

 

If I had a penny for everytime I heard that question...

They are. Just in a different path. For our ancestors, intelligence was the way to go. For theirs, intelliegence wasn't as much of a problem.

 

I'd also like to say that no REAL missing link has been found, before you start yelling at me here

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evolution-and-the-fossil-record.htm

If you don't feel like going to the link here is a paste of the info

1 David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981, 289. The reality of the "human fossil record" of the past century:

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

 

I know that many of those were hoaxes, such as the Piltdown Man. However, I'll need to see some evidence from somewhere like National Geographic to believe that Lucy is not a human ancestor. I would've heard about something like that.

 

Give me one sec.

National doesn't say anthing.

 

Anything else? The link you provided seems very biased, and unfortunately, I won't believe it without proof.

I'll post the link on a Wikipedia discusion article, to see what they think.

 

I'm bored I am going to take my bike for a ride.
I'll come back in two hours.
Later!

 

Genesis 1: 20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2: 7And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I refuse to believe a creation story that contradicts it's self. Which one is the real creation?

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

To answer your question about monkeys, They are still evolving. Everything is still evolving. It's a slow process, especially in mammals and any other complicated organism. None of us will see a monkey evolve into something else in our life times.
They are on a different branch of out genetic family. Just like Neanderthal man which was a species of human that had evolved specialized for the ice age (which is part of the reason why they aren't around anymore.)

 

I am back, oh and here is a handfull of links.

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolutio...tp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm
http://members.aol.com/gjrum/fakefossil.htm
http://www.csm.org.uk/expo3.php?PHPSESSID=e0b9f4806a4c731e5d0ba84ae1436443

More links for you.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen1.html
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen2.html
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen3.html
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Dinos.html
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Design1.html

 

That right there has just about everything I could say my self about fake fossils.

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/webquest/content/dinobirds.shtml

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm

 

is it me or am i making the situation worse?
Also stop being a hater, I don't hate you, if I did would I be trying to convince you?

 

What? No one hates you. This is a debate.

 

This may be a slight tangent but I THINK it is a semi-relevant one.

Evolution supplies a better suggestion as to why we have different genelogical ethnicities. (IE why certain races have certain different physical traits and such.) Whereas creationists merely say "ADAM + EVE = somehow every person the planet currently".

What supports evolution more in my opinion is that the theory says that there was a main continent with the roots of mankind (I have no idea which one in specific or what, but this is merely the geist of the concept) which eventually broke off after they were seperated. The difference of climates/environments caused for the specific traits and seperate cultures to develop and so forth.

The bible (Christianity in this case because that appears to be the most used in this debate) on the other hand only talks specifically about the lands where the bible was written in (which is techinically what is now the middle east).

Also, why was man created out of sand/mud/earth while every other living creature was created via biblical POOF? And even more so, woman out of sand/mud/earth-man's RIB? Logically evolution which is through CELL PRODUCTION (we know cells exist and can have a dramatic impact on "creation", if you deny it please refer to the zygote's development into a fetus), is far more believable then the "crude artisan's" depiction.

Random Side-Note: Didn't God LIE to Adam about the tree of good and evil? He said CERTAIN DEATH (which typcially means you die instantly) if Adam and Eve ate from the tree, but instead they died after a long period of time (supposively, does the Bible even tell us when/how or do they omit it along with how Adam's wives spontaneously existed?) I'm not really an avid reader of the Bible or anything, so it might just be a translation inconsistancy. But if he did, didn't he just break one of his own laws? c_c

 

I'm not going to speak for the people who take the Bible completely literally, but for the most part what I've been taught was that for the most part the Bible was all about lessons being taught and a meaning that you should look for behind the actual text.

If I'm not mistaken even the Pope went public with the fact that in all likelihood evolution did exist, and whether or not it did really didn't disprove any of the fundamentals of Christianity. The only thing evolution would really prove wrong is the theory of creationism, which - when you honestly think about it in relation to the scientific discoveries in favour of evolution - seems somewhat ******ed(for lack of a better word).

To be completely honest with you Zandyne, the only explanation I can offer you as to why Humans would have required the use of sand/mud/earth because God supposedly willed it so. That's pretty much the only evidence the Bible offers. So with regards to that question, "LULZ ITZ MAGIC!"

As for the lie thing, the fruit of that tree essentially represented the knowledge of right and wrong(if I remember correctly, which I probably don't), and thus what could have been meant by that would be that if you eat this sheeit then your existence, as you know it, will end.

All that being said, I believe in evolution. I'm pretty much an atheist, and I chose to say all that because I was bored.

LULZ K BAI NOW!

 

I have yet to meet a creationist believer that doesn't choose to be ignorant of selective parts of evolution theory. Evolution is the progressive change in which lesser organism evolve into more complex organisms and takes millions of years to achieve any hint of fruition. Monkeys are evolving, it's just that anything profound won't be witnessed for a real good chunk of time. But whatever, I'm tired of debating with self-proclaimed enlightened people who take a book whose roots originate from mythologies as old as those in ancient Egypt, to be fact.

 

For me, I go both ways. I go inbetween them. I beleive in Evolutions but I also beleive in God. The big bang theory made since yes, but how did that create us. The starters of time is a mystery ya know. You don't want to go in too deep, it'll hurt your head.

 

I'm not sure about religion or science, but I'm sure I'm not alone. I prefer not to put a lot of thought into it.
I'd honestly rather play KH2.


Okay, I'm not sure if anyone's explained this yet,

"If [blah blah] evolved from [so-and-so] than why isn't [so-and-so] still evolving?"

Do some reasearch people! There's a whole Internet out there! c'mon!

I'll use monkeys and humans as my example. I get this question all the time from my friend.

Over a course of hundreds of THOUSANDS of years, monkeys slowly evolved into chimps, and the chimps evolved to humans.

as in:
Fluffy monkey with tail > slightly less furry monkey with tail> slightly less fluffy monkey with shorter tail > and so on and so forth. And they didn't just turn into diferent monkeys. The baby monkeys were the ones who were different, and then the it went like that for hundreds of thousands of years before humans actually existed.

I'm not sure, but I think the reason why there are still monkeys and not all of them evolved is because maybe only some of the monkeys genes might have changed to allow them to be different. I haven't researched that yet.

Sorry if it sounds like i'm explaining it to a little kid, I didn't mean for it to be like that.

 

I like CarbuncleGem's laid back attitude but there is something I would like to put first.
Science is technically a type of a relegion just without fearing a God.
The most believable religion is tauhgt in schools meaning Science. (Except for religious schools.)

On subject though, I believe in Evolution more but their is still the possability that there is some type of higher being but is not proven. About Christianity, I bet Jesus was a good guy but over time people with higher power, like the Pope (not the current one but their are ones in history) that have changed Christianity to suit there own benefits.

 

U BLIEVE N SUMTHIN I DUNT!!! THARFOR J00 ISH STOOPID!!!

Love your logic on this matter.

They are still evolving, they simply have taken different evolutionary paths than what you are comparing them to. Thus, the monkeys that you refer to in your post actually did evolve from a more primitive version of it. Even now, humans are still evolving constantly. It may not be in ways so extreme such as growing extra limbs and the like, but we are evolving.

I'd say more but I'm tired. =( Stupid work.