(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Monkeys will only occupy niches where they are not in direct competition with humans. The most fit species will outcompete the less fit. Monkeys will move, adapt, or die when they are faced with competition from humans.

True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

Monkeys, and most species, only exist because humans don't need their habitat just yet, and haven't felt the need to wipe them out.

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Monkeys will only occupy niches where they are not in direct competition with humans. The most fit species will outcompete the less fit. Monkeys will move, adapt, or die when they are faced with competition from humans.

True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

(12-10-2015 09:28 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Monkeys will only occupy niches where they are not in direct competition with humans. The most fit species will outcompete the less fit. Monkeys will move, adapt, or die when they are faced with competition from humans.

True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

Monkeys, and most species, only exist because humans don't need their habitat just yet, and haven't felt the need to wipe them out.

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Monkeys will only occupy niches where they are not in direct competition with humans. The most fit species will outcompete the less fit. Monkeys will move, adapt, or die when they are faced with competition from humans.

True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

No matter what you believe with regards to the formation of all things, you believe that at some point, something came from nothing.

(12-10-2015 09:35 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  No matter what you believe with regards to the formation of all things, you believe that at some point, something came from nothing.

I didn't say I believed that

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Monkeys will only occupy niches where they are not in direct competition with humans. The most fit species will outcompete the less fit. Monkeys will move, adapt, or die when they are faced with competition from humans.

True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

(12-10-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

Correct. Though the Big Bang is not a crack pot lol. Man, did any of you ever take a science class? Or did you take them right after sunday school?

why can't you believe that some intelligent designer decided to make the universe using energy and evolution? Or that some intelligent designer used energy to create the galaxy and humans are just part of the long line of evolution that is taking place and are no more special than any other species that has ever walked the earth?

(12-10-2015 09:39 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:35 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  No matter what you believe with regards to the formation of all things, you believe that at some point, something came from nothing.

I didn't say I believed that

The why would God create the big bang when he could just create the universe and its species?

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:39 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:35 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  No matter what you believe with regards to the formation of all things, you believe that at some point, something came from nothing.

I didn't say I believed that

The why would God create the big bang when he could just create the universe and its species?

See above.

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

Correct. Though the Big Bang is not a crack pot lol. Man, did any of you ever take a science class? Or did you take them right after sunday school?

Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically. Anything claiming to explain 4.5 billion years is crackpot. It is like finding a needle in a hospital and theorizing that the hospital is a heroin operation.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human.

In regards to humans you left a bunch out on your journey.
Amoeba's became fungus like, plant like and animal like unicellular organisms. Unicellular organisms became Sponges and tube worms. During the Cambrian time you had the explosion of life and many tinkerings of body plans. These body tinkering plans eventually settled on your basic symmetrical fish body. From there lung fish noticed a bunch of food on land that the other fishies couldn't get to. These lung fishes fins eventually became rudimentary legs. This branch evolved into amphibians. These amphibians eventually evolved into reptiles. These reptiles eventually evolved into mammals.


Endless tracts of time.

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Monkeys will only occupy niches where they are not in direct competition with humans. The most fit species will outcompete the less fit. Monkeys will move, adapt, or die when they are faced with competition from humans.

True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

Correct. Though the Big Bang is not a crack pot lol. Man, did any of you ever take a science class? Or did you take them right after sunday school?

Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically. Anything claiming to explain 4.5 billion years is crackpot. It is like finding a needle in a hospital and theorizing that the hospital is a heroin operation.

You should go back and retake them....a lot has happened since you probably last sat in a science class. It doesn't take a genius to know that the galaxy is expanding. But anyway, you should read or listen to some of the new information that has been discovered. I'm not a scientist, and typing it all out would take a herculean effort.

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:13 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  True when the species are competing for the same outcomes. Primates and humans can co-exist as they are not direct competitors. However, it is theorized that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) did out compete the archaic humans (Neanderthals and Dinovisians).

It is also true that many diverse species co-exist in a mutual relationships.

From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

The fact that EverRespect is a potential voter terrifies me.

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  From what I have seen of the most recent ideas on human evolution, Homo Sapiens absorbed the Neanderthals and Dinovisians, and there is compelling DNA evidence that proves the case.

And for those who are not very familiar with human evolution, Man, Monkeys, Apes and all of the primates we have today evolved from a common ancestor that I believe predated the species within the genus australopithecus, or the branching occurred within the genus australopithecus.

The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

Understandable, just know that science has evidence to explain evolution. Where as Christians have faith. Again, I don't really care what anyone believes. I'm of the camp that some intelligent designer must have started this whole thing, but as a history major I know there have been thousands upon thousands of religions in human history, so who is to say which is right and which isn't. With evolution at least you it can be explained to you. DNA is in all living things.

(12-10-2015 09:49 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Something came out of nothing at some point, even if you believe every crackpot theory from big bang onward.

Correct. Though the Big Bang is not a crack pot lol. Man, did any of you ever take a science class? Or did you take them right after sunday school?

Took plenty of science classes... way more than the average liberal arts major... just know how to think critically. Anything claiming to explain 4.5 billion years is crackpot. It is like finding a needle in a hospital and theorizing that the hospital is a heroin operation.

You should go back and retake them....a lot has happened since you probably last sat in a science class. It doesn't take a genius to know that the galaxy is expanding. But anyway, you should read or listen to some of the new information that has been discovered. I'm not a scientist, and typing it all out would take a herculean effort.

You mean the universe? I do not believe the universe is finite. As far as the galaxy expanding (I assume milky way?), that would fly in the face of centripetal force. If true, the variables are infinate and any attempt and explaining it is futile.

The scientific theories we have now (most of them) have been built on centuries of meticulous thinking, asking of questions, and observations by some very smart people. Any theory worth the name involved experiments and those theories that did not match observations got discarded over time. I think they have a fair idea of the general timeline over 4.5 billion years. There's a lot they still don't know but there's a lot that has tons of good evidence behind it.

(12-10-2015 09:54 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:33 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The common ancestor is an amoeba, which became a fish, which became a rodent, which became a monkey, which became a human. The theory looks like it was written by a 1st grader and then edited by a scientist using big latin words to make it sound smart.

As opposed to a great spirit forming a human out of mid air using dust and bones? Because that sounds like a 1st graders attempt at science fiction.

Not only that but god had to steal one of Adam's ribs in order to make Eve. He must be absent-minded or he would have left one of the ribs out in the first place.

I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

Understandable, just know that science has evidence to explain evolution. Where as Christians have faith. Again, I don't really care what anyone believes. I'm of the camp that some intelligent designer must have started this whole thing, but as a history major I know there have been thousands upon thousands of religions in human history, so who is to say which is right and which isn't. With evolution at least you it can be explained to you. DNA is in all living things.

I agree there is evidence. The evidence also requires some quantam leaps to come up with the total story. There isn't enough evidence for me to subscribe.