Evolution vs. Creation
- Thread starter fishypoo2
- Start date
Mako the Egyptians kept meticulous records- what are you talking about? Who do you think built the pyramids? As for the rest, um...not it! Not touching it with a ten foot pole.
OK, from this point forward, any strong religous talk will be deleted. I have let this thread slide to see how you guys would do with it but it is turning into a religous debate.
If you want to talk about science in relation to creation or evolution that is fine. You can talk about theories and related books and info concerning both views but we need to keep readings and related material from the bible's out at this point.
Not doing this to be a jerk as I was raised catholic until I got kicked out of CCD when I was about 14 for questioning some beliefs.
If you want to talk about science in relation to creation or evolution that is fine. You can talk about theories and related books and info concerning both views but we need to keep readings and related material from the bible's out at this point.
Not doing this to be a jerk as I was raised catholic until I got kicked out of CCD when I was about 14 for questioning some beliefs.
That's fine with me. Since no one has posted anything that has made me even slightly make me question why I have turned against my religion that I was raised to believe in.
Divergent evolution: Two groups of the same species becoming more and more dissimilar because of environmental adaptations.
Africans and Australian Aboriginals: Dark skin to prevent harm from the sun. Tall and slender to adapt to the heat(less mass=more heat dissipation). Larger nasal caveties to cool the hot air before it enters the body and overheats it.
Inuit: Short and much thicker(higher mass=more heat retention). Light skin due to cloudier(darker regions) and little harm from the sun.
Europeans: Big crossroads of civilization, so it's all mixed. But predominately with light skin(Europe is a very cloudy region) contains the original area where blond or light colored hair(just like most animals(mainly prey animals but not exclusively) do in snowy regions) and are mainly of stockier build. Granted, not a lot, because we traveled so much and mixed so rapidly.
Where does this end? Eventually in seperate species. But our technology caught up too quick, so we are all over the place intermingling and preventing a seperation of species from happening.
Divergent evolution: Two groups of the same species becoming more and more dissimilar because of environmental adaptations.
Africans and Australian Aboriginals: Dark skin to prevent harm from the sun. Tall and slender to adapt to the heat(less mass=more heat dissipation). Larger nasal caveties to cool the hot air before it enters the body and overheats it.
Inuit: Short and much thicker(higher mass=more heat retention). Light skin due to cloudier(darker regions) and little harm from the sun.
Europeans: Big crossroads of civilization, so it's all mixed. But predominately with light skin(Europe is a very cloudy region) contains the original area where blond or light colored hair(just like most animals(mainly prey animals but not exclusively) do in snowy regions) and are mainly of stockier build. Granted, not a lot, because we traveled so much and mixed so rapidly.
Where does this end? Eventually in seperate species. But our technology caught up too quick, so we are all over the place intermingling and preventing a seperation of species from happening.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saying we are 100% human does not mean we are 100% the same.
The most difficult part about even suggesting such a thing is which ethnic group gets to be the focus?
Well, all the fossil records say we originated in Africa, so I guess Africans are the focus.
30,000 years ago there were very large animals on every single continent. Mammoths, Saber tooth tigers, giant sloths, HUGE reptiles in Australia. And then they all died mysteriously. Happened to coincide with human dispertion across the globe. Does that imply that we killed them? That's a huge debate. But most people admit, that most likely we did do it.
But let me ask you this:
If humans killed all the large animals on all the different continents, why is Africa, our ancestral homeland, the only continent that is known to have very large animals?
Because those are the only animals that coevolved with us.
Those are the only animals that slowly adapted to our increasing abilities to kill them.
If a herd of Antelope in Africa see a lion come over a hill they do not run.
They just look at it and mutter, "I see you, lion. You start running and I'm out of here."
Those same Antelope see a human come over a hill and they run like hell was behind them.
One says, "Hey, is that a human?"
"Ah, crap yeah it is! Freaking RUN!!!!"
When we traveled out of Africa all the large animals did not realize how dangerous we were.
They just looked at us and said, "That's a funny looking animal. Never seen anything like that. Hey, why is it holding that funny branch thing? What is it doing with that? Really odd animal. Hey wha??? gurgle..."
Any animal in Africa would have told them. Don't wait. Don't just stand there. Just run. Run like the wind.
If humans and animals were all created at the same time, and no one had a chance to evolve in response to the dangers of each other, then all the surviving large animals would not only exist in Africa.
But they do. So what does that tell you?
The most difficult part about even suggesting such a thing is which ethnic group gets to be the focus?
Well, all the fossil records say we originated in Africa, so I guess Africans are the focus.
30,000 years ago there were very large animals on every single continent. Mammoths, Saber tooth tigers, giant sloths, HUGE reptiles in Australia. And then they all died mysteriously. Happened to coincide with human dispertion across the globe. Does that imply that we killed them? That's a huge debate. But most people admit, that most likely we did do it.
But let me ask you this:
If humans killed all the large animals on all the different continents, why is Africa, our ancestral homeland, the only continent that is known to have very large animals?
Because those are the only animals that coevolved with us.
Those are the only animals that slowly adapted to our increasing abilities to kill them.
If a herd of Antelope in Africa see a lion come over a hill they do not run.
They just look at it and mutter, "I see you, lion. You start running and I'm out of here."
Those same Antelope see a human come over a hill and they run like hell was behind them.
One says, "Hey, is that a human?"
"Ah, crap yeah it is! Freaking RUN!!!!"
When we traveled out of Africa all the large animals did not realize how dangerous we were.
They just looked at us and said, "That's a funny looking animal. Never seen anything like that. Hey, why is it holding that funny branch thing? What is it doing with that? Really odd animal. Hey wha??? gurgle..."
Any animal in Africa would have told them. Don't wait. Don't just stand there. Just run. Run like the wind.
If humans and animals were all created at the same time, and no one had a chance to evolve in response to the dangers of each other, then all the surviving large animals would not only exist in Africa.
But they do. So what does that tell you?
Incidentally (according to the last Discovery Channel show I saw on them) the great Pyramid of Giza (sp?) was not built by slaves but by conscripts. Some might see little difference, I would say that the difference is pay, production incentives, and lack of whips...
That's the really odd thing about egyptology to me- they know how they built the pyramids, they know where they got the materials, they know the time frame in which they were built but the nature of the laborers themselves is the biggest blank. I don't have the cable(I have issues with the concept of paying for TV) but I read somewhere that they found what they think is the bakery for the laborers. Pretty cool. I love the little details of archaeology- the work is not as fun as it sounds but I love reading about it. I can't remember that main egyptologist's name- he's the one you see on EVERYTHING about the pyramids but I think finding out who the workers were at Giza is his big thing now. It woudl be excellent if they found their quarters.
I've read that the people who actually built the pyramids were all the farmers of the Nile valley during the off season. Part of the year, you farmed. The other part of the year, you built.
You don't think that because we take care of our sickly and weak, allowing them to pass on those weakness to the next generation is a factor?
Every year our technology improves to help us allow our most physically pathetic members survive. They have their own families, their own children. We are doing our best to make sure that the poorer genetic codes will survive to remingle with our population.
In nature, that does not happen. Survival of the fittest. If a male lion beats another male lion he takes over all of his females. And his first act is to kill all the cubs. The weaker lions offspring die. Clearing the way for the superior animal to produce his offspring.
In the same way, when we were nomadic hunter/gathers you had to be physically fit enough to stay with the group, and assist the group. Hunt, scavenge, labor. If you couldn't, you were left for dead.
Naw, that can't be the reason.
Last edited:
One of the archaeological shows I watched on Disc. channel or history channel said they've found thousands and thousands of meat bones (fish and red meats) - to a degree that can only mean the people were eating extrememly well; too well for slave food.
And they showed those huge bakeries they've found with all of the bread molds and fire pits. Pretty cool.
And they showed those huge bakeries they've found with all of the bread molds and fire pits. Pretty cool.
