Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Shemjaza]

I have no idea what you are talking about so it's best I bow out since this conversation has taken a weird turn.

Evolution is silly and it's a reach to describe something for those who reject God's word.

The issue is that it is not primarily a belief held by the non religious.

Formal education rejects the theory but reminds students that it was once a theory long ago when we were bored, because there was no internet, so wild theories were a great way to pass the time and fit into social clubs.

I'd honestly like to hear the grounds for this attitude,

 

[Shemjaza]

Make sure you look at all evidence and not just those that support your theory of evolution. Otherwise, you are not admitting you have a bias and will only see and find the research that supports your bias i.e. confirmation bias.

I have admitted my bias to God's word but am aware of both views, for and against, evolution in the science realm. I'm not interested in either, given that I do not believe in it at all, but both views exist with the majority debunking it on the basis that we have moved on from that thinking for a variety of reasons.

I've mainly been convinced of evolution by the scientific evidence I've seen, my atheism is a separate matter... but I've always tried to keep up with different views and conclusions. (That's why I originally came to this forum).

If you can afford to go behind a paywall, even for a few days, it would probably be very enlightening for you to see that what I'm saying is true but also, you may find things you and I don't know about which may be interesting for you.

All the best.

Can you point me in a direction of what kind of studies or principles allowed you to conclude that research had moved on from evolution? Or what journals I should investigate paying for access to?

I ask because in my readings from scientists researching biology and paleontology it is still absolutely accepted as the explanation with attempted alternatives like Intelligent Design Creationism sufering from problems of definitions and evidence.

 

[YorkieGal]

I've mainly been convinced of evolution by the scientific evidence I've seen, my atheism is a separate matter... but I've always tried to keep up with different views and conclusions. (That's why I originally came to this forum).


Can you point me in a direction of what kind of studies or principles allowed you to conclude that research had moved on from evolution? Or what journals I should investigate paying for access to?

I ask because in my readings from scientists researching biology and paleontology it is still absolutely accepted as the explanation with attempted alternatives like Intelligent Design Creationism sufering from problems of definitions and evidence.

Yes, no problem.

You'll have to give me some time because I will need to go through my textbooks (if I still have them) plus remember the website(s) I used for research. Some of these websites were linked to my university, which meant I could bypass paywalls, but my university days ended in 2015/16, so I'm sort of rusty on where to grab info since I do not work in the field of my study, either.

I'll get back to you but, if you don't hear from me in a few days, give me a nudge.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, no problem.

You'll have to give me some time because I will need to go through my textbooks (if I still have them) plus remember the website(s) I used for research. Some of these websites were linked to my university, which meant I could bypass paywalls, but my university days ended in 2015/16, so I'm sort of rusty on where to grab info since I do not work in the field of my study, either.

I'll get back to you but, if you don't hear from me in a few days, give me a nudge.

No problem, it can be interesting to read new ideas, even if you disagree with the conclusions or premises,

 

[USincognito]

Evolution is silly

Only to those who choose not to understand it. Nothing in biology makes since without evolution.

and it's a reach to describe something for those who reject God's word.

That certainly is a narrative used by Creationists to reject the science they don't like.

Formal education rejects the theory but reminds students that it was once a theory long ago when we were bored, because there was no internet, so wild theories were a great way to pass the time and fit into social clubs.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

 

[YorkieGal]

Only to those who choose not to understand it. Nothing in biology makes since without evolution.

That certainly is a narrative used by Creationists to reject the science they don't like.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

I've already stated I have a bias. My bias was actually to the contrary during my active study which I also disclosed when researching and studying.

There is lots about biology which makes sense without evolution in the formal scientific capacity and there are some things which neatly fit into evolution, also. Hence the reason there are so many contrary studies for and against the theory with the majority, at my time of study, against.

My opinions don't have to make sense to anyone just like everyone else is entitled to their own senseless opinions.

 

[Blaise N]

Not just denied bu replaced with
utter fantasy made up
to explain away what doesn't fit said
( very childish) fantasies.

If anyone is being immeasurably disrespectful it’s you,and you claiming the Bible is a fantasy is blasphemy at its finest estrid,it’s hurtful.What’s pitiful is you’re so brainwashed with skepticism and spiritual blindness, we Christian’s are basically talking to a brick wall,nothing can get through to you.You’d rather believe your greatest ancestor was a paramecium or single-celled organism swimming in water.Or maybe we go even further, you’d rather believe your first ancestor was a rock randomly blown into existence trillions of years ago.

If anything sounds like it’s a fantasy it’s believing life was created from non-living matter from a black void with mysteriously no beginning.feel free to sit back and pridefully think you know everything because you got science textbooks supposedly filled with atheists desperate and extreme attempts to explain God out of the universes creation.

Have you ever considered that the skulls of “Homosapiens” or “Neanderthals” are Birth-defected humans? Your, and atheists instant,desperate intitial thoughts are “THIS IS A MISSING LINK,SEE WE DID EVOLVE!!” But you never give a second thought to any other possibilities for it.Anything that looks like it proves evolution unbelievers cling to like a money-obsessed scrooge,every piece of “evidence” is just something else they cling to to arrogantly deny Gods existence.

 

[Astrid]

I have no idea what you are talking about so it's best I bow out since this conversation has taken a weird turn.

Evolution is silly and it's a reach to describe something for those who reject God's word.

Formal education rejects the theory but reminds students that it was once a theory long ago when we were bored, because there was no internet, so wild theories were a great way to pass the time and fit into social clubs.

Nothing weird in me objecting to your making
up a falsehood about me.
Leaving the falsehood uncorrected is on
your spirit, not mine.

What is weird is your claim that "formal
education" finds evolution "silly".
I don't know if you made that up or are in
a cult. Neither is "formal education".

But sure, drop it, stay in your dream world.

 

[YorkieGal]

Nothing weird in me objecting to your making
up a falsehood about me.
Leaving the falsehood uncorrected is on
your spirit, not mine.

What is weird is your claim that "formal
education" finds evolution "silly".
I don't know if you made that up or are in
a cult. Neither is "formal education".

But sure, drop it, stay in your dream world.

I didn't say anything about you, personally, but you insist that I did so I think you have me confused with someone else. You are taking a lot of heat here, so it's understandable that you are getting things confused. Just to be clear, I never said anything about you, personally. I am dropping the conversation in the interest of mutual respect. All the best.

 

[Astrid]

I've already stated I have a bias. My bias was actually to the contrary during my active study which I also disclosed when researching and studying.

There is lots about biology which makes sense without evolution in the formal scientific capacity and there are some things which neatly fit into evolution, also. Hence the reason there are so many contrary studies for and against the theory with the majority, at my time of study, against.

My opinions don't have to make sense to anyone just like everyone else is entitled to their own senseless opinions.

Care to say what in biology makes sense
without evolution?
Or even one datum point contrary to ToE?

Opinions don't have to male sense,
unless you want them accepted.
Like being put into effect .

Baseless opinions dont fly airplanes.

As to bias. You are aware that bias is
a guarantee of, direct cause of scientific /
intellectual dishonesty?

 

[AV1611VET]

You still want to go down this line.............

I'd like to go down this line, if it's okay with you:

Post 1376

 

[Astrid]

Not monkeys - chimpanzees. Actually, there used to be four species of humans on Earth. Then there were only Neanderthals. Homo sapiens, who are bigger, stronger, and more capable of traveling long distances, married Neanderthals into extinction after a long overlap. You may have Neanderthal ancestors if your biological family originated in Africa or the Middle East, but I can assure you no homo sapiens came from monkeys and the chimpanzee link is one common ancestor for all hominids. One common ancestor led to the creation of various species - bonobos, monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. - and homo sapiens happens to be the last remaining of all humans in that taxa, now that neanderthalis is extinct.

W regarding to my comment that you need to brush up
on paleontology.

Neanderthal, described by one author- " even the women
had arms to rival those of the mightiest blacksmith". For.more powerful than H. sapiens as even a non specialist could see by their bone structure.

Nine recognized species. And counting. Not four.

As for long distance travel? Your statement is unsupported speculation. H. erectus made at least to east Asia.

Nobody knows why erectus or Neanderthal or aay other
species went extinct. "Intermarriage" is speculation.

It's by far best to stick to data supported statements,
and to clearly identify speculation for what it is
rather than stating it as fact.

Imagination and opinion stated as fact is the substance
of our creationist friends' posts. No fair trampling their
territory.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Intermarriage" is speculation.Nobody knows why erectus or Neanderthal or any other species went extinct.

It's by far best to stick to data supported statements,

Ab so lute solid gold!

Yes indeed.

Stick to data-supported [nobody-knows] statements.

And if you can't, then speculate.

"Intermarriage" is speculation.

Reminds me of one of my standards that I take flack for:

5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

It's okay for science to speculate, isn't it?

But no one else is qualified?

And you wonder why I'm down on hyp scientists like I am?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Nobody knows why erectus or Neanderthal or any other species went extinct. "Intermarriage" is speculation.

People do know homo neanderthalis and homo sapiens mostly lived in the same regions and only homo sapiens made it to North America because in some ways they were biologically superior.

Think of it this way: If a neanderthalis and a homo sapiens reproduce, using Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory of evolution, which species do you think their children will be?

 

[Astrid]

People do know homo neanderthalis and homo sapiens mostly lived in the same regions and only homo sapiens made it to North America because in some ways they were biologically superior.

Think of it this way: If a neanderthalis and a homo sapiens reproduce, using Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory of evolution, which species do you think their children will be?

Of course they lived at the same time.

Sapiens arrived in New world after neander was extinct.

Biological superiority is an iffy term. So is survival of
fittest. Neither term is in use in science.

And it's not Darwin's term.

That said, who would win out between the two
would totally depend in circumstances.

And as noted, nobody knows why any human species or
hominid went extinct.

If creationists go extinct I'd say failure to adapt would
be the reason.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes indeed.

Stick to data-supported [nobody-knows] statements.

And if you can't, then speculate.

Why did Neanderthal go extinct? Can you answer without speculating?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course they lived at the same time.

Yes indeed they did.

They are both -- to use evolution terminology -- Homo sapiens.

And in fact, Homo sapiens came BEFORE Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.

If creationists go extinct I'd say failure to adapt would be the reason.

If we do go "extinct," I'd say many went by way of the Rapture.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes indeed they did.

They are both -- to use evolution terminology -- Homo sapiens.

And in fact, Homo sapiens came BEFORE Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.

Speculation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did Neanderthal go extinct?

Their generations died out.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Anyone in your family have smallpox now?

Can you answer without speculating?

No.

I wasn't there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Speculation?

Interpretation.