Origin of humans on the Earth

[billvon]

simple, chicken must come from chicken, not from dog.

Not after ten thousand years or so

Take corn. Think about a nice ear of corn. Now consider that ten thousand years ago, corn looked like a tiny hand grenade and had about ten kernels. It looked more like a stalk of grass than modern corn, and was called "teosinte." And the kernels would break your teeth if you tried to eat them. But people started to selectively breed them, and now they look like corn.

So simple. Corn came from teosinte, not corn.

Likewise, consider chickens. They came from an early animal that split off into many other animals. (Interesting fact - the closest living relative of the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the chicken.) Over the years they evolved until they became the red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus.) That still wasn't anything like a modern chicken - these were birds with small breasts, strong legs and small sizes (max about 3 pounds.) Then people started breeding them and they turned into chickens.

So chickens came from Gallus gallus, not chickens.

 

[Saint]

Evolution is religion, not science.
Contradiction of facts with evolution was afraid to be mentioned by its believers.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Evolution is religion, not science.

where did you get that idea from ?

books ?
people ?

... ?
did you come to that conclusion by studying evolution for years ?
or is it just a feeling ?

Contradiction of facts with evolution was afraid to be mentioned by its believers.

please post one of these "contradictions"

"all or nothing" is not scientific method
"all or nothing" is a religious belief concept
applying that ideology to science is simply turning science into a religion to prove your own religion has no need to be critical of its self.

the lack of a religion to be critical of its self leads to war & genocide

Science and religion say different things.
Anyway, can we tryst carbon 14 dating to millions of years of prehistoric humans (but not really humans, isn't it?)
We are homo sapiens, we are not neanderthal, we cannot say neanderthal is our ancestor.
Pig also has similar gene as human, but we don't believe pig and human are of same origin.

Contradiction of facts with evolution was afraid to be mentioned by its believers.

please post one of these "contradictions"

you should have ideally included some of these contradictions at the start of your thread.

now is as good a time as any considering it is the core of your point of argument
and ... you have not yet listed any "contradictions" held by scientific people whom follow the science of evolutionary concepts

i think your posts suggest you are fat(with ego) lazy(with study) & idol rich(with lust for materialism)
this is the impression i get from your threads asking about the new very very expensive material computer things
which you seem to have very little regard for the massive wealth they contain over and above the tenets of the catholic and christian faith.

it is never to late to change

 

[Michael 345]

Evolution is religion, not science.
Contradiction of facts with evolution was afraid to be mentioned by its believers.

Still waiting for 3 items of evidence for JC being a real person

With this latest post by yourself I suspect never going to get

Still you surely have evidence that evolution is a religion

Care to share that evidence?

 

[origin]

Evolution is religion, not science.
Contradiction of facts with evolution was afraid to be mentioned by its believers.

Saint, I am going to report you. The reason is that you have made several claims in this thread and each time you made a claim members have asked you for evidence to back up your claim and you have ignored them. Instead of supplying supporting evidence you just make another claim. This is a disingenuous way to carry on a discussion and not in keeping with the spirit of this forum.

 

[Yazata]

simple, chicken must come from chicken, not from dog.

That's why I wouldn't expect an ape to evolve into a man.

Sure, chickens 'come from' chickens, not from dogs. But the "chickens" they 'came from' long in the past (prior to these birds' domestication) didn't look exactly like chickens do today. Those birds' distant ancestors weren't exactly like them either, and even less like today's chickens. Eventually if you trace chickens back generation by generation, you will eventually arrive at something similar to the theropod dinosaurs. (This group contained the famous T. rex, though it probably wasn't a direct chicken ancestor, but rather another branch of the tree that terminated without leaving any progeny in our world today.)

Dogs and chickens did once have a common ancestor, but this animal lived earlier than the dinosaurs, hundreds of millions of years ago. So we could say that some of this animal's offspring did go on to become dinosaurs, then birds and chickens while others did go on to become mammals, humans and dogs. It might have looked something like a land-adapted amphibian or an early lizard. It's where we all got the characteristics we share in common like two eyes, four limbs, back bones, hearts, lungs and so on. Family resemblance with the very early common ancestor.

 

[Jeeves]

Evolution is religion, not science.
Contradiction of facts with evolution was afraid to be mentioned by its believers.

Of course. Just as rocket scientists are afraid to admit that they can't land on the moon and acolytes of the oceanography cult are afraid to explain how water keeps flying off at the equators and has to be replenished from the poles, which is what really accounts for global warming, but climatologists are afraid to mention any of those contradictory facts - because they're all religions.
In fact, the only true science is Scientology.

 

[Tiassa]

Evolution is religion, not science.

You fail to comprehend both, religion and science.

Contradiction of facts with evolution was afraid to be mentioned by its believers.

Again, you don't seem to understand how science works. But you could start by providing an example of what you mean by this.

 

[James R]

I have moved a post by Yazata to its own thread, here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-science-a-religion.162719/

 

[Saint]

plenty of materials to refute and prove evolution is flawed, just google and read.

 

[origin]

plenty of materials to refute and prove evolution is flawed, just google and read.

Seriously? Weren't you just warned about making claims without supplying evidence, so you do it again?

OK, reported again. [Shrug]

 

[Tiassa]

plenty of materials to refute and prove evolution is flawed, just google and read.

So, you can't tell us what you're on about?

 

[C C]

Science and religion say different things.
Anyway, can we tryst carbon 14 dating to millions of years of prehistoric humans (but not really humans, isn't it?)
We are homo sapiens, we are not neanderthal, we cannot say neanderthal is our ancestor.
Pig also has similar gene as human, but we don't believe pig and human are of same origin.

If this is about creationism or Young Earth Creationism, especially... Then as far as your personal or religious-group beliefs go, and justifying them to yourself (not the world of education and science), you'll have to go the wild Philip K Dick route of deeming the current world and its history to be an appearance. Or akin to a deceptive simulated reality that humanity entered at some point. Seems like there's even a passage in Revelation about the old world passing away and a new one replacing it (or the original one and its history in the Bible's myth structure simply returning).

Don't waste your time trying to challenge the "internal story" of the empirical, natural cosmos in terms of how life forms developed on Earth. Because our environmental experiences and our systematic inferences/understandings about them simply aren't going to support the Bible's accounts. As a kind of vague analogy, if you are reading a published fictional book or watching a movie, you are stuck with the reality of those officially released stories. You aren't going to alter their canon by offering fan-fiction alternative versions. Even if the wild hypothesis of a deceptive, mass dream-world (which is personal-interest motivated in origin) were the case... We'd still be stuck in the facts of this pseudo-reality, so we might as will learn them so as to predict, manipulate, and survive its affairs according its supported "story".

What you or fellowship would believe is the veiled "real world" would just be your local thing going on to protect your religion without interfering anymore in science's job of investigating the "illusion". (You darn sure don't want to sidetrack that endeavor, for all our sakes.) Here's an exploration of YEC in the simulation context, jump down further in the text for that (it's actually a 23-part series the blogger outputted): https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2019/02/21/saints-simulators-5-3minuteuniverse/

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

This is basically a troll thread. Infraction was issued after being warned twice about making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.

So, thread closed. Saint, if you cannot support your claims, don't make said claim.