Evolution is NOT stupid.

[Scrotum]

Is not pride one of the Decalogue´s ?


And is not claiming to be the Center of the Universe quite Prideful? So whats the deal here? Explain it to me, clearly i missed something as an atheist.....

If you are a ´Evolutionist´ (biological) we have once been what we could define as ´ape like´ creatures. And we are changing (thats what evolution means, NOT GETTING BETTER, ONLY CHANGE) all the time. We are not the final product of the Universe, we are only one current product, of the contemporary Universe.


So being a ´Evolutionist´ is the opposite of Pride, whiles Creationism (or denial of Biological Evolution) is pride in its full glory.


Comments and perhaps a debate about this?

[QED]

I think you're right about this one Scrot. Something I find ironic in all this pride is the parallel existence at one time of the Neanderthal species. These guys seem to have been well on their way to evolving all the traits that modern humans are so proud of. This much is very clear from an examination of their anatomical features (e.g. the configuration of their Larynx) and the artifacts they were creating. But they became extinct (do we harbour a guilty secret about this I wonder?) and nobody will ever know what their true potential might have been.

But if we were to draw a line back when they were still alive and compare their culture with ours at that time I doubt if we would be quite so proud of ourselves. I say this because there's a nasty streak that runs through all the early human civilizations and I can't help thinking that this is what has driven us to dominate the world more so than our supposed intelligence.

[McCulloch]

If you are a 'Evolutionist' (biological) we have once been what we could define as 'ape like' creatures.

Technically not quite correct. Biologically speaking, humans are one of the great apes. We did not evolve from an ape like creature. We are part of the family of the great apes.
Not only are the Chimpanzees and the Bonobos closer to us genetically than any other species, we are closer to them genetically than any other species. Jared Diamond calls humans the Third Chimpanzee, because, in reality, our species should really be classified as the third branch of the same genus as the Chimpanzees (Pan). It is only pride that makes some create a separate taxonomic tree for humans.

Taxonomy according to Goodman (1999)
Source:
Goodman M. (1999) The natural history of the primates.
"MOLECULAR EVOLUTION'99:The Genomic Record of Humankind's Evolutionary Roots"
America Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 64, pp. 31-39

• Family Hominidae
  • Subfamily Homininae
    • Tribe Hominini
      • Subtribe Pongina, Pongo: orangutans
      • Subtribe Hominina
        • Gorilla: gorillas
        • Homo (Homo): humans
        • Homo (Pan): chimpanzees, bonobo

[Scrotum]

Technically not quite correct. Biologically speaking, humans are one of the great apes. We did not evolve from an ape like creature. We are part of the family of the great apes.

Now my friend, you missunderstood a $, If you would say That, the First thing out of their mouths would be: IM NOT A DAMN APE !!!

They refuse to accept it, hence, thats why i formulated it in that way. I know very well we are all apes, a 5yorld should be able to SEE and then draw CONCLUSION of this, this is why i see a Creationist mind at maybe the early age of childhood (maybe 1 or 2?).

That we have labeled our species to be "special" is fine by me, do what you tant, i dont know, as long as people know we are decendants/are apes when it comes to the end of it.

[Cathar1950]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060731/ap_ ... n_museum_1
Museum uses bible to tell earth's history

PETERSBURG, Ky. - Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the Earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve.
That, of course, is contradicted by science, but that's the point of the $25 million Creation Museum rising fast in rural Kentucky.

Its inspiration is the Bible — the literal interpretation that contends God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them just a few thousand years ago.

"If the Bible is the word of God, and its history really is true, that's our presupposition or axiom, and we are starting there," museum founder Ken Ham said during recent tour of the sleek and modern facility, which is due to open next year.

Ham, an Australian native who started the Christian publishing company Answers in Genesis in the late 1970s, said the goal of his privately funded museum is to change minds and rebut the scientific point of view.

"We're going to show you that we can make sense of the different people groups, we can make sense of fossils, we can make sense of what you see in the world," he said.

Visitors to the museum, a few miles from Cincinnati, will be able to watch the story of creation unfold in a 180-seat special-effects theater, see a 40-foot-tall recreation of a section of Noah's Ark and stare into the jaws of robotic dinosaurs.

"It's education, but it's also doing it in an entertaining way," Ham said.

Scientists say fossils and sophisticated nuclear dating technology show that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old, the first dinosaurs appeared around 200 million years ago, and they died out well before the first human ancestors arose a few million years ago.

"Genesis is not science," said Mary Dawson, curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were."

Ham said he believes most fossils are the result of the Great Flood described in Genesis.

Mark Looy, a vice president at Answers in Genesis, said the museum has received at least $21 million in private donations. He said two anonymous donors have given $1 million, and he expects the museum to be debt-free when it opens next May.

John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, an organization that promotes creationism, said the museum will affirm the doubts many people have about science, namely the notion that man evolved from lower forms of life.

"Americans just aren't gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish," he said.

[Metatron]

I try to imagine the ecology of the world that Creationist seem to believe existed only thousands of years ago. A world in which the wooly mammoth lived side by side with Allosaurus. Sheepherders fending off attacks by dromeosaurs and smilodons. Antediluvian warriors fending off T-Rex with sharp pointy sticks. Oceans teeming with dolphins, plesiosaurs, trilobites, and giant sea scorpions.

I'm also curious why when God told Noah to take two of each animal on Earth on to the Ark that none of the Triceratops, Baluchtherium, Eohippus, or Dimetrodons made it on board. And how did so many animals occupying the same ecological niches managed to live together.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Cathar1950]

It does seem odd that so many modern fossils are missing the old layers.
If creationism is right as they say then you should have some place where all the animals lived. What seems to be missing in old layers is modern animals and the old ones are missing in our time.

[RebelSnake]

At some point the preponderance of evidence would suggest that it would be a good idea to stop believing in myths and fairy tales.

[UNIquelyCanadian]

It does seem odd that so many modern fossils are missing the old layers.
If creationism is right as they say then you should have some place where all the animals lived. What seems to be missing in old layers is modern animals and the old ones are missing in our time.

Aren't those statements based on circular reasoning?

If you base the age of a rock on the fossils it contains no wonder you only find "old fossils" in "old layers". Otherwise how do you date a rock?

...Obviously a layer on the bottom would usually be somewhat older then one above it. I mean other then that.

Keep it wheel,

[redneck22]

At some point the preponderance of evidence would suggest that it would be a good idea to stop believing in myths and fairy tales.

You're right Rebelsnake, I could never swallow the one about the frog turning into a prince