Evolution Question

[Hespera]

Physical evidence (i.e. mt-Eve) is not something I discount.

All it is is the "oldest" female found by science --- nothing more.

Beyond that, your evidence halts.

It's like finding another star farther out, using a telescope instead of binoculars --- but there are more stars farther out.

Oldest known female Homo sapiens you mean? The evidence doesnt halt there at all. Stretches back hundreds of millions of years,hadnt you heard?

Your book now...talk about evidence halting! It halts before the first page.
And those who dont look up from it so see if reality exists outside that book sure wont guess there are stars further out. EVen further than the ones that were 'created to give light unto the night". Funny going to the trouble to make trillions of stars so far away that they dont help a bit.

 

[atomweaver]

Physical evidence (i.e. mt-Eve) is not something I discount.

All it is is the "oldest" female found by science ---

Incorrect. As I understand it, mtEve is the oldest female with which all living humans share a hereditary link within their mitochondrial DNA. There were without a doubt other, older females, but their descendants did not survive to the present day.

Beyond that, your evidence halts.

It's like finding another star farther out, using a telescope instead of binoculars --- but there are more stars farther out.

Nope. its not like that at all.

 

[Hespera]

mt-Eve --- as I understand her --- came after Eve, and is one of her descendents.

To use her as evidence of evolution --- when her ancestor was created --- then expecting us to follow along --- is what is contributing to the [artifical] length of this thread.

He who committed 560,000 posts is complaining about the artificial length of a thread???

 

[atomweaver]

Well I had a cheeseburger at McDonald's the other day.

Does that make me a cannibal for eating my distant cousin?

No, I mean how you eat other humans, silly. Those of your own species; you consume them for sustenance. Eating cheeseburgers, that's commonplace. Its only creationists that I've ever read as having the widespread modern practice of eating other humans for food. What's up with that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oldest known female Homo sapiens you mean?

Yes --- oldest known female Homo sapiens.

I forgot you guys call yourselves Homos.

The evidence doesnt halt there at all. Stretches back hundreds of millions of years,hadnt you heard?

Not in the form of mt-Eve, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Incorrect. As I understand it, mtEve is the oldest female with which all living humans share a hereditary link within their mitochondrial DNA.

In that case --- that distinction goes to Eve --- the wife of Adam.

(No wonder you can't go back farther than her.)

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I mean how you eat other humans, silly. Those of your own species; you consume them for sustenance. Eating cheeseburgers, that's commonplace. Its only creationists that I've ever read as having the widespread modern practice of eating other humans for food. What's up with that?

If that's a reference to me eating atheists for breakfast, then I guess you got me --- 'guilty' as charged.

 

[atomweaver]

If that's a reference to me eating atheists for breakfast, then I guess you got me --- 'guilty' as charged.

*Sigh* No. I don't know how to make it more clear that this is not an analogy for anything. you are a creationist. That means you eat humans. Period. Pieces of human being go in your mouth, you chew, and you swallow. Done. I thought you said you had an argument for this not being the case. I guess you were wrong.

 

[Hespera]

Yes --- oldest known female Homo sapiens.

I forgot you guys call yourselves Homos.Not in the form of mt-Eve, though.

Your homo joke is far from funny

as for mt Eve, i dont know why that seems so important to you, but the ancestry of human beings by any name goes on back far earlier than that. But you are right...the form does change over time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your homo joke is far from funny

I agree, Hespera --- I object to being called Homo [anything].

 

[Hespera]

I agree, Hespera --- I object to being called Homo [anything].

Then how about you quit making that sick joke

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Incorrect. As I understand it, mtEve is the oldest female with which all living humans share a hereditary link within their mitochondrial DNA.

I think you mean youngest: she was the most recent human from which we are all descended (or rather, all our mitochondria are descended from hers).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then how about you quit making that sick joke

I dunno, I thought it was pretty funny .

 

[Hespera]

I dunno, I thought it was pretty funny .

well, actually it was funny. i hereby recant.

 

[Gracchus]

I will watch the videos; but just to give you a heads up, I'm not going to believe anything that contradicts my Bible.

Most of us already understand that. You prefer words on paper, written by men to what is written in stone, and stars, and the very stuff of life.

You can call it what you like (i.e. ignorance, stubbornness, laziness);...

You forgot idolatry.

... but just like you don't take the word of the Bible to be true,...

Some of the Bible is true. Some may be true. Some is not. Some can't be true, because it contradicts itself in places.

... I do not take the words of the scientist to be right.

You have injured your mind by trying to believe contradiction and nonsense.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I agree, Hespera --- I object to being called Homo [anything].

As you wish -- we'll stop referring to you as a man.

 

[Skaloop]

As you wish -- we'll stop referring to you as a man.

Even Jesus was fully Homo.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Even Jesus was fully Homo.

And fully Deus at the same time. Weird, ain't it?

 

[MoonLancer]

As you wish -- we'll stop referring to you as a man.

LOL

 

[Tenka]

GuidanceNeeded, I think a major reason this thread went sour is because your questions drew answers containing far more information than you could handle and required you to have a background of knowledge you weren't prepared to seek.

Honestly, if you wish to categorically and arbitrarily reject huge fields of science without consideration of the evidence supporting the conclusions of, then why even begin a discussion on that science?
It seems like a setup to generate conflict.