Results 1 to 13 of 22
-
08-08-2007, 05:01 PM #1
Multiple partners and human evolution
looks like Adam not only had Eve, but Jane , Mary and Susan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/...uman_evolution
-
08-08-2007, 05:13 PM #2
I read the article. I may not be that familiar with the bible but I don't think evolution is actually covered in it...ergo, the Adam statement is a bit of a stretch.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
08-08-2007, 05:31 PM #3
i would never stretch the truth or tell a lie
-
08-08-2007, 08:17 PM #4
Banned
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 8,626
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
A continuous process indeed.....full of probably's and maybe's.
-
08-08-2007, 08:18 PM #5
Banned
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 8,626
-
08-08-2007, 08:21 PM #6
it said if the male was bigger than the female, chances are he had multiple partners.
-
08-08-2007, 08:25 PM #7Yup. But that does not matter.A continuous process indeed.....full of probably's and maybe's.
You see... evolution is both fact and theory. That's because all of science begins with an observation that we got curious about. An apple falls to the ground, for example. Yeah... but why?
That's when science steps in. Not before. So... if we get the explanation of how apples fall to the ground completely wrong, does that mean that they will stop?
Evolution is an *observation*. Science has nothing to do with it other than attempting to explain that observation."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
-
08-08-2007, 09:02 PM #8
Banned
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 8,626
Sure it matters.
Processes under construction are constantly changing as are the supposed facts and theories that explain them.
For instance, science explains Earth age in millions of years, yet we know that the theory of how old Earth actually is has changed and will change.
Will there ever be a certainty as to how old the Earth is?
I don't think so.
-
08-08-2007, 09:08 PM #9
-
08-08-2007, 09:25 PM #10
I will agree and disagree at the same time.
We probably don't know EXACTLY how old things are to the Nth degree. But there is such a thing called margin of error. For example. A creationist scientist might say that he found a 50,000 year error in a certain prediction and he might even be right! But... what does 50,000 years matter when the measure is in millions or even billions?
The Earth is not 6000 or 7000 years old, my friend.
"Social networking" is an oxymoron.
-
08-08-2007, 09:35 PM #11
Banned
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 8,626
-
08-08-2007, 09:44 PM #12
Banned
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 8,626
If I may take it a bit further...not only do we not know....we are stuck with a jag of clues....and clues do not feed the bulldog.
Who decides which "margins" are correct and where the errors exist?? Science? Philosophers? Theists?But there is such a thing called margin of error.
Finding error in a prediction is a contradiction in itself. This is what disturbs me most about projections and hypotheticals.For example. A creationist scientist might say that he found a 50,000 year error in a certain prediction and he might even be right!
And when you can absolutely assert that your measuring techniques are accurate, you will be bringing definitive answers to the table.But... what does 50,000 years matter when the measure is in millions or even billions?
Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that it's ridiculous for someone to state such a thing with certainty when predictions and contradictions are anything but absolute.The Earth is not 6000 or 7000 years old, my friend.
-
08-08-2007, 09:47 PM #13


Reply With Quote
