Evolution Promotes Brutality

[lasthero]

So, I guess, when people ask me questions, I should just say. Sorry, you will have to start a separate thread to discuss that....

I have yet to see a topic here stay in line with the OP.....

That's hardly an excuse to go off topic.

 

[Cearbhall]

Head......into sand......

A human of that size with a femur that's to scale to that of a real human wouldn't be able to stand, anyway. Square-cube law.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, I guess, when people ask me questions, I should just say. Sorry, you will have to start a separate thread to discuss that....

I have yet to see a topic here stay in line with the OP.....

I will agree that people going off topic is rampant in many threads on this website, but you have to realise that when you post a topic that is contrary to the OP and off-topic, and continue those off-topic topics, then you are, for all intents and purposes, hijacking the thread.
But yes, when people ask a question on your off-topic post, you can say sorry and start a new thread on that topic.

Also, since I really should practice what I preach, evolution DOESN'T promote brutality. It is a fact that creatures kill other creatures for food and protection. Simply put, it is the way of it. It always has been, and always will be.

 

[Heissonear]

..........evolution DOESN'T promote brutality. It is a fact that creatures kill other creatures for food and protection. Simply put, it is the way of it. .....

Not so, Warden.

Examine the anatomy and detailed cellular and biochemical makeup of life forms. Mammals are wonderous creatures. All of the biological and molecular processes that take place. They are wonderous in how the "elements" are composed to bring about complex life.

Animals were Created, they did not evolve.

Evolution never happened. There is no historic record of evolution. Only inferences from similarlities, and simple to complex life forms found in the sedimentary rock record.

But I ask you, what did you want Him to do in making a natural world in the eyes of man?

Make it creature-less? Which means in geologic age to be bearing-less of fossils?

One primary element all who object to the Apparent Age use by God is Genesis 6:3 : "and My Spirit will not strive in man forever, for he is also flesh"

People forget God has always worked withing people throughtout time to walk with Him, as many are listed in Genesis, and there are many more not listed in Genesis. This is how I found the Lord, it was not through knowledge, but His Spirit working within me.

This is for others to wake up to. I interact with people daily, many who have know Him before me and some after or since I met Him.

Apparent Age is how God Created Adam & Eve. Is this not so?

Then when God Created the Universe, our galaxy and Earth, did He make it natural? Yes. Did He use Apparent Age like with Adam & Eve?

And how do you know He didn't?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not so, Warden.

Examine the anatomy and detailed cellular and biochemical makeup of life forms. Mammals are wonderous creatures. All of the biological and molecular processes that take place. They are wonderous in how the "elements" are composed to bring about complex life.

Animals were Created, they did not evolve.

Evolution never happened. There is no historic record of evolution. Only inferences from similarlities, and simple to complex life forms found in the sedimentary rock record.

But I ask you, what did you want Him to do in making a natural world in the eyes of man?

Make it creature-less? Which means in geologic age to be bearing-less of fossils?

One primary element all who object to the Apparent Age use by God is Genesis 6:3 : "and My Spirit will not strive in man forever, for he is also flesh"

People forget God has always worked withing people throughtout time to walk with Him, as many are listed in Genesis, and there are many more not listed in Genesis. This is how I found the Lord, it was not through knowledge, but His Spirit working within me.

This is for others to wake up to. I interact with people daily, many who have know Him before me and some after or since I met Him.

Apparent Age is how God Created Adam & Eve. Is this not so?

Then when God Created the Universe, our galaxy and Earth, did He make it natural? Yes. Did He use Apparent Age like with Adam & Eve?

And how do you know He didn't?

You have this brilliant ability to type out a lot of words, but not to actually have a point.
Embedded age has nothing to do with this thread, and your claim about how you found the Lord has nothing to do with it either.
The OP topic is the claim that evolutionary theory promotes brutality. It does no such thing. It merely explains the biological method, through the change in alleles for a population of organisms to change to adapt to their environment.

 

[JacksBratt]

A human of that size with a femur that's to scale to that of a real human wouldn't be able to stand, anyway. Square-cube law.

I am in no way qualified to argue that point. However, I think it is safe to say that the owner of that femur bone would be much much larger than a normal human between five and six feet tall..... or am I wrong?

You can debate all you want about "who saw it". I could care less. Someone did because they measured it. If you want to say it's a hoax because I cannot produce the real thing...... then go ahead. The truth will always be the truth no matter how you dismiss it.

I see structures that were build by lost technology, hieroglyphs of giant beings, read text describing giant creatures in many places, hundreds of skulls that are tangible and in museums in Mexico and Brazil and Peru, but, you won't believe it. Meanwhile you cling to the TOE like it is a pillar of truth. All the while it is fraught with scams and hoaxes of it's own and founded on fossils that are static snapshots of animals that once were, brought to life by the exaggeration, extrapolation and assumptions of men and women who desire with all their hearts that their conclusions be the truth.

Then, you blame me for hijacking a thread by answering your questions. Meanwhile, the OP could care less and, if I was to guess, is not in the least disgruntled by the path it ended up taking.

So, dismiss the facts and cling to your story. I'll stay with mine.

 

[Cearbhall]

I am in no way qualified to argue that point. However, I think it is safe to say that the owner of that femur bone would be much much larger than a normal human between five and six feet tall..... or am I wrong?

No, you're correct. But because the human would be so much taller and heavier, his/her bones (and in particular the leg bones) would have to be much thicker in addition to being scaled up.

Here's a page that puts it simply:
https://www.quora.com/How-biologically-plausible-are-giant-humans

You can debate all you want about "who saw it". I could care less. Someone did because they measured it.

No. Any one of us could come up with a number and say that it's a measurement of something.

If you want to say it's a hoax because I cannot produce the real thing...... then go ahead.

Will do.

The truth will always be the truth no matter how you dismiss it.

Indeed. Likewise, the fact that you think it's true does not make it so. I can't fathom what you seek to gain from thinking that something so preposterous and unfounded is the truth.

 

[lasthero]

hundredsof skulls that are tangible and in museums in Mexico and Brazil andPeru,

Which museums? And what's stopping the EVIL SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE from getting to them? And how come good, honest, wealthy, God-fearing creationists have gone and brought some of these skulls back to America?

 

[JacksBratt]

Indeed. Likewise, the fact that you think it's true does not make it so. I can't fathom what you seek to gain from thinking that something so preposterous and unfounded is the truth.

What do I have to gain? Just evidence that backs up the scripture of Genesis 6, the book of Enoch, the book of Jasher and the book of Jubilee which support the Biblical text in this context.

A better question is what do you have to lose if what I am saying is true?

Why do people lose their minds when I start talking about Giants? Especially when there are actually hundreds of skulls in existence. They are found near and around structures of megalithic scale out of rock that is carved to near perfectly flat surfaces even though they are 7 on the Mohs scale of hardness which is much harder than the bronze tools that were available. Holes drilled into this same rock. Rocks that fit so tight you cannot fit a human hair between them, walls that are built with polygonal shapes without mortar with rocks that are hundreds of tons in weight and hundreds of miles from the quarry and thousands of feet in altitude in multi layers.

They lose their minds because it upsets the TOE apple cart.

Open your eyes. The evidence is overwhelming. They were here. They were large. They knew things we don't. They were not dumb cave men. They had technology that has been lost.

Instead of getting me to answer all these questions and then slamming me. Take some time and research it as hard as you are trying to prove me wrong.

 

[JacksBratt]

Which museums? And what's stopping the EVIL SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE from getting to them? And how come good, honest, wealthy, God-fearing creationists have gone and brought some of these skulls back to America?

Museums in Peru and Mexico. I don't know. One archaeologist says they are so numerous in Peru and other areas that it's almost like tripping over them. Check out the video in post #616. Give your TOE a break, live a little and watch the whole thing and listen to the questions and answers at the end....
The evil Smithsonian would love to have this all proved wrong. But, then again, you can have 20 solid articles talking about them and then one says its a hoax so all the people who are losing the foundation in their belief will jump on board with the one solitary article that says its a hoax.

LOL your last statement is hilarious..."And how come good, honest, wealthy, God-fearing creationists have gone and brought some of these skulls back to America?" good grief.....

WHY... is it not true, does it not exist, is it a lie if it is not brought back to the good ole US of A? Bring it back to the US they said..then it will be solid truth..... LOL how arrogant.

Get over yourself. The artifacts of Egypt, Belgium, Africa, Bulgaria, Peru, Mexico..... whatever, DO NOT have to be brought to the US to be confirmed as actually existing.

 

[lasthero]

Museums in Peru and Mexico. I don't know.

So you know that there are museums with skulls, but you don't know where these museums are? How does that work?

One archaeologist says they are so numerous in Peru and other areas that it's almost like tripping over them.

Okay. Where are they, exactly?

The evil Smithsonian would love to have this all proved wrong.

So what's stopping them?

WHY... is it not true, does it not exist, is it a lie if it is not brought back to the good ole US of A? Bring it back to the US they said..then it will be solid truth..... LOL how arrogant.

I didn't say that. But I do find it odd that, out of all the creationists in the US who would love to have these skulls, none of them ever find them.

Get over yourself. The artifacts of Egypt, Belgium, Africa, Bulgaria, Peru, Mexico..... whatever, DO NOT have to be brought to the US to be confirmed as actually existing.

Where in Bulgaria? Where in Peru? Where in Mexico? Do you have any specifics whatsoever?

 

[JacksBratt]

So you know that there are museums with skulls, but you don't know where these museums are? How does that work?

The Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca Nevada used to keep a series of human skulls in a cabinet in the basement for private viewing. They have now repatriated the skulls and no longer have them. I saw them in 2006 and photographed them in the cabinet. From: https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...elock-cave-the-skulls-of-the-humboldt-museum/

Giants in Peru
Recently I took a trip to Peru and guess what jumped out at me in some of the museums I visited there? Yes, it was giants. In Peru they are not whisked away like they are in the USA. (It should be noted that there have been hundreds of giant discoveries in the USA that have been either ignored or taken into custody by the Smithsonian never to be seen again.) The Incas actually had kings that were giants and had red and blond hair. In the Gold Museum in Lima you can still see the clothing and head of an Incan king who stood an easy 10 feet tall. His golden robe is 8 feet long and did not touch the ground when he wore it. His gold gloves are twice as long as my hands. His dried and mummified head is easily twice the size of mine and I'm not a little person. There are two giants and their belongings in the Gold Museum in Lima Peru. Everywhere you go in Peru there are giant skulls and skeletons.
From: http://hubpages.com/education/Human-Giants

Museum of the necropolis at Paracas, Peru.

Mr. Juan Navarro, owner and director of the local museum, called the Paracas History Museum, from:
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...s-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible

So what's stopping them?

Maybe they don't have jurisdiction.

Maybe the fact that you could have a tanker full of evidence showing proof but it would all be disbelieved if a kindergarten kid said it was a hoax. So they let the doubters do their work. Why be concerned when the internet says it's a hoax and all the sheep believe it.

I didn't say that. But I do find it odd that, out of all the creationists in the US who would love to have these skulls, none of them ever find them.

I am sure that there are customs issues with taking artifacts of this nature out of the country... I do know that Rob Skiba has a plaster cast of one that he acquired some how.

Again, just because you want one you cannot have one.... sorry.

Where in Bulgaria? Where in Peru? Where in Mexico? Do you have any specifics whatsoever?

I've given a few places. I'm not spending too much more time on this. I'm sure you can run a search engine.


Chances are the source will be dismissed as "a creation site", " a site with no accreditation, " Oh that guy has bifocals on so I don't believe him" or some other lame excuse to dismiss the fact that these exist.

They exist all over the globe. They exist near and around megalithic structures. They are not human. They are larger than humans. They usually have red hair ( who knows why). The skeletons have six toes and fingers and the jaws have two rows of teeth and the brain cavity is 2/3 larger than that of a human skull. They are not created by head boarding and they do not poses the typical suture lines that EVERY human skull has....

 

[46AND2]

The Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca Nevada used to keep a series of human skulls in a cabinet in the basement for private viewing. They have now repatriated the skulls and no longer have them. I saw them in 2006 and photographed them in the cabinet. From: https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...elock-cave-the-skulls-of-the-humboldt-museum/

LOL @ the giant "handprint."

 

[lasthero]

The Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca Nevada used to keep a series of human skulls in a cabinet in the basement for private viewing. They have now repatriated the skulls and no longer have them. I saw them in 2006 and photographed them in the cabinet. From: https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...elock-cave-the-skulls-of-the-humboldt-museum/

But they're not there now. How convenient.

Museum of the necropolis at Caracas, Peru.

As best as I can tell, there is no such museum. There is a museum by that name, but it's in Spain.

Maybe the fact that you could have a tanker full of evidence showing proof but it would all be disbelieved if a kindergarten kid said it was a hoax.

Typical. 'Even if I had evidence, you wouldn't believe me!'

So they let the doubters do their work.

Except when they do the work. Funny how these shadow organizations work - they're only competent when you need be to explain why there's no tangible evidence.

Why be concerned when the internet says it's a hoax and all the sheep believe it.

Typical. 'People who don't believe me are just sheep!'

I am sure that there are customs issues with taking artifacts of this nature out of the country...

You're sure? Based on what? Fossils are brought in all the time.

I've given a few places. I'm not spending too much more time on this. I'm sure you can run a search engine.

Typical. 'I don't have to research to support my claims! You should support my claims for me!'

They exist all over the globe. They exist near and around megalithic structures. They are not human. They are larger than humans. They usually have red hair ( who knows why). The skeletons have six toes and fingers and the jaws have two rows of teeth and the brain cavity is 2/3 larger than that of a human skull. They are not created by head boarding and they do not poses the typical suture lines that EVERY human skull has....

When you find one, let me know.

 

[[serious]]

There are many true Christians who have accepted that life on Earth evolved over millions of years.

In particular, lifeforms have been around for over 200 million years which have continuously lived by biting and devouring other lifeforms.

Has God allowed brutality to be the means for many lifeforms to exist for such a long period of time?

I don't think so. How about you?

A couple points:
1. If it's been allowed for 6000 years, why does 200 million sound far fetched?
2. It's been longer than 200 million years. Plants are lifeforms too. Even with the Garden of Eden version of events, plants were getting bitten and devoured in a perfect world.

 

[Cearbhall]

What do I have to gain? Just evidence that backs up the scripture of Genesis 6, the book of Enoch, the book of Jasher and the book of Jubilee which support the Biblical text in this context.

Alright, let's take it back a step further. What do you believe you have to gain by attempting to prove that these texts are historically accurate in a literal sense?

I'm trying to get at the root of what makes people believe in religious hoaxes like giants and try to spread them with such vigor.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am in no way qualified to argue that point.

Them you have a problem.

However, I think it is safe to say that the owner of that femur bone would be much much larger than a normal human between five and six feet tall..... or am I wrong?

And such a human being would not be able to stand or walk. The bone would not support the weight. That's the point.

You can debate all you want about "who saw it". I could care less. Someone did because they measured it.

Just like my dragon is real because I measured in for you.

Incidentally, the average leprechaun is between 2 3/4 - 3 1/2 feet tall. Now you believe leprechauns are real.

If you want to say it's a hoax because I cannot produce the real thing...... then go ahead. The truth will always be the truth no matter how you dismiss it.

The truth is that nobody can produce the real thing... can you guess why?

I see structures that were build by lost technology, hieroglyphs of giant beings, read text describing giant creatures in many places, hundreds of skulls that are tangible and in museums in Mexico and Brazil and Peru, but, you won't believe it.

Won't believe what? The only part we don't believe is your conclusion.

Meanwhile you cling to the TOE like it is a pillar of truth. All the while it is fraught with scams and hoaxes of it's own and founded on fossils that are static snapshots of animals that once were, brought to life by the exaggeration, extrapolation and assumptions of men and women who desire with all their hearts that their conclusions be the truth.

What makes those men any different from you? Oh, right -- they have actual evidence that people have seen.

So, dismiss the facts and cling to your story. I'll stay with mine.

Maybe someday you'll see an actual bone...

 

[PsychoSarah]

This idea that evolution as a concept promotes brutality has some degree of merit, though people misusing scientific concepts is not a valid basis for looking down on the concepts themselves.

1. People did, for a brief period of time, attempt to apply biological evolution to societies. This resulted in social Darwinism and eugenics, both of which were used to justify unethical behaviors. What one should remember is that evolutionary theory doesn't make people take on these kinds of behaviors, which are founded in misusing and misunderstanding certain aspects of evolution, such as how the term "fit" is used, and not knowing the limits of how theories can be applied. Furthermore, we learned our lesson (for the most part) via the negative consequences that occurred as a result of abusing evolution. In any case, practically all knowledge can be used to promote erroneous ideologies or harmful practices; that doesn't mean we should ban all knowledge, just because our species doesn't have the greatest track record of being responsible with it.

2. In social species such as humans, brutality, along with other antisocial behaviors, is generally selected against in natural selection. This is because we benefit the most when we work together rather than constantly fight. I acknowledge that, for a social species, humans are quite violent, but as we move towards being more interdependent worldwide, any advantage that provided is quickly eroding away. We just don't change as fast as it disappears.

3. The theory of evolution not only doesn't state that there is only one way to be biologically successful; it blatantly suggests the opposite. All niches that species fall into represent these many different ways in which they have adapted to their respective ecosystems. How they adapt further also allows for many different possibilities. This goes for humans as well. Even if natural selection in humans favored brutality (which it currently does not), that wouldn't mean it would always be so.

 

[AV1611VET]

This idea that evolution as a concept promotes brutality has some degree of merit, though people misusing scientific concepts is not a valid basis for looking down on the concepts themselves.

Which one wore the shirt that said NATURAL SELECTION?

Klebold or Harris?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which one wore the shirt that said NATURAL SELECTION?

Klebold or Harris?

I'd say why you're wrong, but I know it won't matter since you'll be right back to using that 'example' to say that evolution is wrong.