Evolution/natural selection. Yes or no?

[Vipa]

it has now been proved that the man we are today (homosapian) has not been found on this earth longer than 6,000 years,

 

yes skulls and skeletons have been found resembling modern man but they have been proved that they are not the same,

 

however ape skulls have been found which are even older and they have not changed in any way, so they are now saying that it is impossible for man to have evolved from apes, also their are different varieties of ape and none of those skulls have shown any change over the 1000,s of years, we are two totally different types

 

now regards the bible and how we evolved ie, adam and eve well lets be honest i am a bit to mature and wise to believe that they ever existed and where gods creation, it is all a man made fabrication , but if it makes people feel happy to believe in god then get on with it,

 

when i was younger at school we where taught that we came from apes and even had posters on the wall starting from a crustation and then growing legs ,then crawling , then an ape and then into man today,,what a total load of tosh,

 

lets not forget not so long ago people thought the world was flat this has also been proved to be wrong,, I THINK

 

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

[yates]

I would have thought some of the members of pigeon watch prove that Darwins theory about evolution is a work in progress

[CZ550Kevlar]

Aliens put us here.

[kdubya]

You missed an option - 'none of the above'

 

yep my vote

 

KW

[henry d]

Henry D himself suggested another thread.

That was on another topic though, not this one and with another person.

[Mk1 Man]

That was on another topic though, not this one and with another person.

 

Stop splitting hairs.

and do you have the right to display that coat of arms as your avatar?... I would suggest not as they are the CoA of King Henry IV & Queen Elizabeth 1..... and as such, The right to use or display them in any form belongs solely to the members of that family.

 

 

and I quote....

 

 

According to the usual description of the law of arms, coats of arms, armorial badges, flags and standards and other similar emblems of honour may only be borne by virtue of ancestral right, or of a grant made to the user under due authority.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Mk1 Man

[henry d]

I give these few thoughts;

 

Chimps etc. along with early "humans" had no trouble giving birth, yet over X00,000 or even a couple of Million years the cranium has grown to help contain the brain that grew as humans capacity of thought grew. The human pelvis did not, this meant that during childbirth the baby has to be turned to exit the birth canal, causing not just pain but deaths in some cases. Why did the cranium evolve and not the pelvis?

 

Stop splitting hairs.

and do you have the right to display that coat of arms as your avatar?

 

Stop going off thread, if you want to ask a question start another topic or PM me

[gazzthompson]

I believe in adam and eve.

 

Not the bible rubbish tho. http://en.wikipedia....hromosomal_Adam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Edited March 13, 2013 by gazzthompson

[henry d]

Stop splitting hairs.

and do you have the right to display that coat of arms as your avatar?... I would suggest not as they are the CoA of King Henry IV & Queen Elizabeth 1..... and as such, The right to use or display them in any form belongs solely to the members of that family.

 

 

and I quote....

 

 

According to the usual description of the law of arms, coats of arms, armorial badges, flags and standards and other similar emblems of honour may only be borne by virtue of ancestral right, or of a grant made to the user under due authority.

 

Ahhh, you went out of your way to try and annoy me, how very sad of you. (**Mods** - Sorry for the deviation off thread)

[paul65]

You missed an option - 'none of the above'

 

Yep, what about 'Darwin was right about natural selection but that's not the whole story.'

And as for modern humans having only been around for a few thousand years, there's a lot of evidence that we've been around way longer than the accepted timescales. Unfortunately scientific disciplines have become very insular so if a geologist finds compelling evidence about human origins, it gets shouted down by archaeological anthropologists if it doesn't fit with their world view.

[Mk1 Man]

 

Stop going off thread, if you want to ask a question start another topic or PM me

 

Silly Smilies may not be enough to keep you out of trouble regarding your Avatar...

I suggest you read this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_heraldic_arms and

 

http://the-red-thread.net/genealogy/the-right-to-arms.html

 

paying particular attention to the 1st line of the second article.

[FalconFN]

 

 

Yep, what about 'Darwin was right about natural selection but that's not the whole story.'

And as for modern humans having only been around for a few thousand years, there's a lot of evidence that we've been around way longer than the accepted timescales. Unfortunately scientific disciplines have become very insular so if a geologist finds compelling evidence about human origins, it gets shouted down by archaeological anthropologists if it doesn't fit with their world view.

That's why I worded the poll as 'broadly right', it would be impossible and impractical to list 'punctuated equilibrium' and the like as options. But as I asked earlier if you know of another recognised theory let me know and I'll add it.

[paul65]

That's why I worded the poll as 'broadly right', it would be impossible and impractical to list 'punctuated equilibrium' and the like as options. But as I asked earlier if you know of another recognised theory let me know and I'll add it.

 

Fair enough. I'd say you need to add something along the lines of 'Humans are the result of intervention by a non-human intelligence.'

Edited March 13, 2013 by paul65

[FalconFN]

 

 

Fair enough. I'd say you need to add something along the lines of 'Humans are the result of intervention by a non-human intelligence other than God.'

Added a paraphrased version.

[crosshair]

Points to ponder.

 

Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Abel, Cain killed his brother, Cain later took himself a wife.

Anybody know where she came from ?.

[Mk1 Man]

Points to ponder.

 

Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Abel, Cain killed his brother, Cain later took himself a wife.

Anybody know where she came from ?.

 

Mary...after Joseph divorced her for suspected adultery. after she gave birth to a kid she knew wasn't his

Edited March 13, 2013 by Mk1 Man

[Nial]

Silly Smilies may not be enough to keep you out of trouble regarding your Avatar...

I suggest you read this

http://en.wikipedia....f_heraldic_arms and

http://the-red-threa...ht-to-arms.html

paying particular attention to the 1st line of the second article.

 

 

I'd be worried if I was you too, The Venerable Society of ********* will be after you for being one without paying for a license.

 

 

Nial

Edited March 14, 2013 by Zapp

[Mk1 Man]

I'd be worried if I was you too, The Venerable Society of ********* will be after you for being one without paying for a license.

 

 

Nial

 

 

Oooooh name calling...how big of you

[henry d]

Points to ponder.

 

Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Abel, Cain killed his brother, Cain later took himself a wife.

Anybody know where she came from ?.

 

She was a Neanderthal. Nowhere in Genesis is there a list of non-human animals apart from "Nephilim" so it is conceivable that these hominids, possibly like the "pre" humans the Darwinists tout their theory about, were these others that Genesis 6:4 goes on about (during and post Adam and Eve).

[paul65]

She was a Neanderthal.

Hmmm mmmm, gotta be a cutie...

[crosshair]

henry d

 

I think you are wide of the mark, ..... neanderthal, I don't think so.

[goodo123]

Was on about evolution the other day and a mate came up with a interesting point. Their are less life pressure on those who don't work and take the pee, they tend to have bigger familys at earlier ages due to getting more money etc, they pass on their treits to their young drug taking etc and they mostly follow the same path more kids lack of education etc. Thisenevitably lowers the average I.q. people who work and earn a.decent living are forced to have fewer kids due to working to pay for the unemployed. So in theory in a few years time we will have less useful people and more scroungers possibly ? Or even just be totally messed when it gets to the point of not enough workers to support the scroungers. If anyone is out of work this is not aimed at you the references made are to people who have no intention of supporting themselves and expect others to pay for them

[henry d]

henry d

 

I think you are wide of the mark, ..... neanderthal, I don't think so.

 

Oh, OK, I bow to your better explanation.......... sorry!

[paul65]

 

I think you are wide of the mark, ..... neanderthal, I don't think so.

 

Very well reasoned and insightful argument.

[crosshair]

The book of Genesis says that Eve also had two daughters, Cain married one of them, yes his sister.

So, it looks like that's when the in-breeding started.