And yes, that is what I was getting at regarding the "cross-breeding". ALl of the articles I read, stated that the neanderthals etc ALL originated from the same place, but further down the line of time, they had been re-introduced and many of the species that had moved to the Asian regions and elsewhere around the eastern world, they had begun a natural evolutionary process, changing their skin, hair, blood, spinal makeup etc.... Many years later, these new species were re-introduced to the original bloodlines, which were located back in what we now call Africa. It was at thing point in time, when species were overlapping that true evolution sped up indefinitely. Then these newer, corss bred species become a third, different style human, and they began to migrate again, and when the thrid "breed" started breeding with the second, asian breed etc... and so on and so on...
I am just saying, in all the research I did, I found NO ONE that really had a strong argument against every SINGLE human from every corner of the earth, all coming from what we now call Africa. And while Asia was one of the first destinations, everything points back to one, ORIGINAL human species. The one that started it all. And as conditions became more harsh and resources were limited, they moved on, migrated and RAPIDLY started developing new characteristics... Then they mixed and match for thousands and thousands of years, eventually becoming what we call a modern human today....
The missing link to me, is in between the apes, and the mostly hairless, "homo sapiens/Neanderthal". Everything else makes sense. You find very similar forms, with slightly different characteristics, overlapping in the times they shared earth, but eventually dying off as breeds became so much different, the natural instinct was to consider these older species "animals", which is just survival of the fittest, which every species goes through....
But again, creationism and evolution should not eliminate each other... No one every said that "god" was a human. No one ever said that. And what modern man construed from a story from "jesus" (whether you believe it or not) in the story of Adam and Eve was told as a parable, to explain creation to humans at the time. It was not meant to be literal. And you can believe in both religion and evolution, simply because "Jesus" was basically a god in human form. If you believe in God, you can believe that 150,000 years ago, god sent another form to earth that was in the form of a neanderthal, to help lay the basic ground rules of surviving and maintaining the earth....
I don't think anyone needs to be so "core" on either end, to completely remove one or the other. This day in age, I couldn't tell you what I believe anymore... But to just shoot down anyone who believes in religion or culture like that isn't right either. I don't believe in MOST of what religion is all about, but I also can't sit here saying that because there were Neanderthals, there was no being of higher order than us that made this big ball of life go round.
The big bang COULD have been the result of a metaphorical "snap of the fingers" by something that is much greater than us, and has been around longer than we can even imagine.
Results 111 to 120 of 221
Thread: Dog lovers are annoying
Jun 18, 2014, 05:42 PM #111
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Hilton Head Island - OB, SD
Jun 18, 2014, 05:48 PM #112
Jun 18, 2014, 06:14 PM #113
There is a lot of evidence there:
Science and evolution doesn't rule out all creation. It just uses data and facts to explain our origins. If you want to believe that a god started the big bang, I have no data to go against you there. However, if you use something like the bible as facts, that is when people who study scientific theories take issue. Religion belongs in the world of philosophy, and should be completely separated from science unless data is used to prove what the theologists say.
Last edited by brewengineer; Jun 18, 2014 at 06:16 PM.
Jun 18, 2014, 06:21 PM #114
You guys can go back and forth on this all day, and we all have our personal ideas. But one thing that really gets me is that Creationism is still being taught in American public schools(Missouri, not sure about othe states). Some districts require that parents be warned when Evolution is to be taught. That's f**king scary.
Jun 18, 2014, 06:23 PM #115
Jun 18, 2014, 06:34 PM #116
Myth of Religious Neutrality. Great read...the fact of the matter is most of the sciences originated due to a theological belief. Just because science uses a empirical epistemology doesn't necessarily separate it from the realm of philosophy/theology. Sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse IMHO...
Further, we believe what we think to be true based upon a host of factors, sociological, geographical, theological, educational, etc. These factors cause us to be biased or head down a particular trajectory...wehter dealing with evolution, creationism, etc. The fact of the matter is...scientific fact is interpreted and is not as dogmatic as you are making it out to be...just because something is "found" within the scientific community does not reduce it down to an absolute.
Jun 18, 2014, 06:35 PM #117
It's been made quite clear that species change and evolve over time. If parents want to teach their kids from the Bible that's fine, but if we're teaching the Bible in public school that's the same thing as Sharia in the Middle East.
Jun 18, 2014, 06:38 PM #118
Jun 18, 2014, 06:41 PM #119
Jun 18, 2014, 06:42 PM #120