Lancer: Maybe when I am 60 years old and this thread is still around I'll let you know if I go back to devout Catholocism... That depends if evolution is proven by then of course

About the forcing of beliefs thing... I believe evolution to be more passive in nature. They don't come to our door or drag us into the streets but the idea is slowly being ingrained in our society. Many people just ignore it or accept it without even knowing anything about it. People like me though accept it based on the facts. The religious part of the population is directly threatened for some reason by evolution and thats why they are trying so hard to disprove evolution. I mean what is so threatening about evolution? Would it shake your faith in God in any way if that part of the Bible wasn't literal?? I think all of the evidence points clearly at evolution... but you, a very religious person, try and interpret the evidence as faulty/fragmented/false/contradicting to evolution. There is no way around that because the evidence, like the Bible, can be interpreted many different ways...

Same with natural selection... I think selection/microevolution is a major tenet in the theory of evolution. selection is one of the driving forces behind evolution, conbined with mutation. You cannot notice macroevolution in several lifetimes so how can you assume it doesnt happen? The fossil record hints at it... About hominids, those fossils look pretty real to me... there are fragments of bone, partial, and whole skeletons of these things. Do you think scientists have faked it all? Take a human arm bone and a human jaw... we could identify Homo sapiens from only those two fragments. We can identify species from even smaller fragments. I'm sure a Homo erectus arm bone and jaw are different from us...

<br>

Oh you're right my ignorance astounds me.. Oh, By the way, i did happen to look that whole Joseph's father story up and found a couple different "explanations" as to why that is so confusing for us "non-believers". Heres a couple links. The first is a complete different explanation that i found on a couple sites (funny how christians can't correlate their stories when reading from the same text, so much for "the test of the canon") THat is that joseph had two different fathers. And the second is "your" explanation that you copied and pasted directly and tried to pass off as your own. Seems you know so much about the bible you decided to just let someone else do the talking? LOL i guess lying isnt a bad thing in the bible huh? or is it? i dont know you're the "bible expert why dont you tell me. LOL!!!!!!!!

Either way, both stories carry little weight.

http://www.duncanproductions.com/SBCOC/faq/contradictions/lineage_of_jesus.htm
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010401.htm

Oh, and i live in las vegas (sin city, go figure) and mormons, christians, and jehova(sp) witnessess are an every day thing in the streets. but you live in a small town of only 42,000 so maybe theres just not as many people doing the whole door to door thing, either that or you're lying, which as we can see by above, you are prone to do.

You'll accept microevolution to create new subspecies, but in your earlier example of a cat going from a cat to lion etc. to create new species that is definately NOT microevolution. THat is a MAJOR change in that cat's genes. Do you realize just how many species of cats there are? and you expect them to all be created within what the last 6 thousand or so years alone? C'mon man! i dont care how many times you say something, if its a false or wrong statement you can repeat it till you're blue in the face and it'll never make it right.

How can you even believe evolution is forced down people's necks if you cant'even remember it being taught to you in highschool. Your explanation on this, like most of your explanations, make absolutely no sense. It was either force fed to you, or it wasnt. And apparantly it wasnt especially if you dont remember it.


P.S. i'll read that webpage later, it should prove quite humorous.
<br>

98' 2.2L Cavalier automatic
<a href="http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=alz_direct&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25">BUY MY EBAY SH*T!</a>

Antonio... I have some more catching up to do (was away for a while), but I have this for you..

From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm

Heli the Father of Joseph

Heli (Gr. HELEI--Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph's father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deut., xxv, 5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deut., xxv, 6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, "The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.", i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the "Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ", thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

Antonio, I never claimed to be a Bible expert. I wish I was, but for the meantime I'm not. Therefore I posted something from a website from an expert. Why did I post it here? Because if I just throw out links all the time most won't go through the trouble of going there and reading the material. If you want me to focus more on citing external sources I can do that if you like. I've heard of this contradiction before too. It's not as if I'm clueless about this stuff. I knew there was a good explanation for that one which is easily accessable. Don't start accusing me of being a lier. I'm all for truth which is why I carefully explain everything including right now. Besides, soliciting is illegal anyway (in Illinois it is). Obviously this door-to-door church practice isn't as big as you make it out to be.

I used to believe in evolution without any second thought. Why? Because I was involuntarily exposed to it through the public school system, which passed it off as fact. How many more ways do you need me to word this for it to make sense to you?

Everything else you said was uneducated rationalism. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

hahahaha: Thanks, that is now the third "explanation" of why Joseph has a second father. Which shows exactly how many different ways you can interpret just two passages from the bible. I cant imagine how many different ways Christians can interpret a whole chapter let alone the ENTIRE bible. No two interpretations seem to agree so how could you possibly know which one is right? The truth is that you can't, so either you accept the bible in its literal sense, or you're just playing guessing games.

Lancer: Don't piss down our backs and try and tell us its raining. You blatantly took that passage and copied and pasted it in here in an attempt to make us think you know what the hell you're talking about. You could have easily put quotes around it and said it was from a webpage. But you falsely tried to make us think that it was your original work and got caught. Get over it and move on.

You dont have to word the fact that you stated evolution is somehow taking over like an evil empire any other way because you said it yourself "I don't even remember being taught evolution in high school." How in the hell can you say something is taking over and then turn around and say that you dont even remember the point when it was supposedly forced down your neck? YOU CANT EXPLAIN THAT, you f*cked up, ONCE AGAIN. Get over it and move on.

"Everything else you said was uneducated rationalism." - Lancer

Oh really well then can some other educated person explain this to Lancer. If a Cat is brought onto a ship and all other species of cats are killed off by some kind of global flood. Afterwards that cat spawns off all the hundreds of different species of cats we have today. What special term is that know as? i'll give you a hint, it starts with an "E" and involves natural selection. Maybe if Lancer hears it from someone else, perhaps it'll open his eyes..

for now.. i am spent.. NEXT! <br>

98' 2.2L Cavalier automatic
<a href="http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=alz_direct&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25">BUY MY EBAY SH*T!</a>

Involuntary - Acting or done without or against one's will

This definition was brought to you by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition by the Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. I know how very very important this is to you, so there you go. This is what evolution does in the public school system. This is clear as day. It's not an option for us not to be brought up having evolution pushed at us as fact. You lose, I win. GET OVER IT. Hahaha! Aww, did I piss you off? Too bad. Maybe you should treat others with a little respect. What a concept! Duh...uuuuuuuhhhhhhh...... hahahaha! It's sad that I have to go down to this level, but it won't be for long.

Well ok, since you're so smart Antonio, explain to me how particle-to-man evolution can occur without creatures gaining any genetic information ever. No one else here has been able to. There's no evidence that new genetic information has ever been formed. Natural selection causes a loss of information (micro-evolution if you want to call it that... yes! The "E" word!!! WOW!).

Also explain how living organizms can come from dead matter. It takes a minimum of 256 specifically programed genes to create a living organizm. Even then, you need other living matter for that organizm to get nourishment. What's going to get this cycle started? Nothing? It's not possible.

You have no clue about how speciation works do you? It happens much faster than millions of years. That's all I'm going to say about that. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

and the saga continues.... LOL! Ohhh so you were "involuntarily" taught evolution, as in against your willl? Now that clears everything up what'd they do tie you to a chair and give you Chinese water torcher? Lets go through your thought process on what evolution is doing to society, or better yet just in your case.

1. It's an evil empire here trying to take over the country blah blah blah etc etc.
2. You can't even remember it being taught to you in highschool.
3. AND NOW "I used to believe in evolution without any second thought. Why? Because I was involuntarily (forcely) exposed to it through the public school system..."

Show of hands... how many think that makes sense, even after Lancer went through of all the trouble of making it "perfectly clear". Anyone? *crickets*

The truth is if you can say they "involuntarily" taught you evolution (even though before they taught you, you didnt know wtf evolution was, so how could it be involuntary?) then i can just as easily say that math or language comprehension skills was involuntarily forced upon me, because to be frank, who really wanted to be at school at that time?! [sarcasm]Damned those evil evolutionists "monopolizing" the school system, getting a hold of your poor uneducated brain and forcing you to learn something you dont want to learn even though you dont know what it is until you actually learn it................[/sarcasm]

I'll defunct the rest of your post later when i got more time, unless someone else does it before me. for now, i must sleep, all this making sense and using logic is so tiring, i can see why you refuse to do it.
<br>

98' 2.2L Cavalier automatic
<a href="http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=alz_direct&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25">BUY MY EBAY SH*T!</a>

lol this is getting nowhere

1. Sure there is no gain in genetic material, but loss in genetic material (selection) and change in genetic material can cause it also. A mutated gene can cause physical change and doesnt result in either gain or loss in genetic makeup, just a change.

2. Yes living can come from dead. Not directly of course (molecules to cells) but it is a gradual process. I explained this earlier... the ocean was a soup of organic molecules (carbon and nitrogen based) that randomly organized over more than a billion years. That is plenty of time associated with the dynamic nature of the early Earth to form organic molecules, then simple membranes, then RNA, then DNA, then simple cells or viruses. Just think 1000000000 years, that is alot of time to experiment.

3. Uh no, speciation on the scale you believe happened is impossible. How do you explain the several distinct periods of speciation (Cambrian, Post-Permian, Post-Cretaceous, Post-Ice Age) indicated in our fossil record. Speciation occurs very slowly and only occurs when a new niche appears and an existing species evolves to fill it. Things don't just randomly appear and fill niches just like that.

All of those statements in you last post are assumptions. you don't know for sure that life didnt start from inorganic material or how long it takes to make a species. Sure species can evolve fast, but I believe that island species like the Galapagos finches evolved long after the species of cats did. I mean we can see evidence of these cats in the fossil record long before any finches appeared...

Antonio: You are getting way too aggressive here. Turn it down a notch alright. Try and keep this a friendly debate if that is possible. There is no way you will change Lancer's mind. If I can't then you can't...

<br>

an organizm seldom looses genetic information in evolution, change yes but loss no, a gene can exhibit it'sself in a number of phenotypes and if that gene changes a multitude of differant phenotypes. on that same not in the human genome there are dozons of genes that express color, texture, contents and other things just in skin cells, but a simple mutation or modification can cause you to have either an incredibly thin epidermis/dermis or several layers more then normal or even a scaley appearance (not just flakey but actually close to scales) it can also express a very hairy "wolf-like" all root from the same gene locations but very differant genotypes, in either case genetic information isnt gained or loss but expressed in very differant ways. i will also repeat that in the human genome there is a DOMINANT trait that expresses it's self as 6 fingers on a hand, granted that this 6th finger is barely functional in most cases (less controll then pinky) however it is rare by our own natural selection, in this case too a very noticable modifiaction doesnt root from a change in ammount of genetic material.

evolution when it was written never explained a loss or gain in genetic material, in fact it never touched on the origin of life or any such nonsense, all that was written was that species modify and i think that that is where it still stands, that is proven fact, this other later included part of evolution such as origin of life is all speculation. argue if you like but it can and has, been easily proven that species modify, i have pointed out several exaples and i think that is a non issue, what we seem to be argueing now is whether evolution made man or God made man, as if both couldnt exsist together. in either case the both sides will never ammount to anything but speculation.

with that said i would like to also say that quotations from web sites are typically questionable, all sorts of bull and rubbish exsists on the web and i think, although it is convienent, we should avoid using just website links as our sources. <br>


-----I slit the sheet the sheet I slit and on the slitted sheet i sit. there I said it.----

to lancer and rocker>

as a proof that not all "evolution" requires genetic gain.

A chimpanzee has 25 pairs of chromasomes

A human has 23 pairs.

we lost, not gained.

but then again, unlike the rest of you, i don't believe humans are a supoerior specie--i believe we're an inferior one. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

i never said anything was always gained and i also never said we were superior. as i said before there is a species of shrimp with over 300 chromosomes, genetically speaking that might be superior. <br>


-----I slit the sheet the sheet I slit and on the slitted sheet i sit. there I said it.----

Anyway...

"1. Sure there is no gain in genetic material, but loss in genetic material (selection) and change in genetic material can cause it also. A mutated gene can cause physical change and doesnt result in either gain or loss in genetic makeup, just a change."

What's "it"? Evolution, or natural selection? How can a microscopic organism "change" into a human? That just doesn't sound right. A human has multitudes more genetic information than a microscopic organism. Where did all that extra information come from? It would have had to been added, meaning the gaining of new information. It doesn't happen.

"2. Yes living can come from dead. Not directly of course (molecules to cells) but it is a gradual process. I explained this earlier... the ocean was a soup of organic molecules (carbon and nitrogen based) that randomly organized over more than a billion years. That is plenty of time associated with the dynamic nature of the early Earth to form organic molecules, then simple membranes, then RNA, then DNA, then simple cells or viruses. Just think 1000000000 years, that is alot of time to experiment."

Where did the programming required to run the hardware come from? What causes them to organize? While the experimentations are taking place, what's keeping these organized cells from dying or falling apart? How can non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism? It's another assumption that has never been observed in any part of the supposed process. Again, throwing out big numbers may make something more believable, but when looking at the actual process that would need to take place, you can see that it's impossible. 256 genes... each gene programmed with a specific purpose... the requirement of other living molecules for nourishment... when was the last thing you ate something that never lived? Rocks and dirt don't make very good food. You need a circular system called a food chain. This is not something that one successful experiment can create. You would need at least 20 (probably much more) successful experiments to happen at the same time and at the same place. What are the chances that each organism would just happen to be specifically programmed to feed the next, all being at the same place at the same time (out of the supposed billions of years)? Next to none. The only way this would happen is if a God put it all tegether which wouldn't need to take billions of years.

"3. Uh no, speciation on the scale you believe happened is impossible. How do you explain the several distinct periods of speciation (Cambrian, Post-Permian, Post-Cretaceous, Post-Ice Age) indicated in our fossil record. Speciation occurs very slowly and only occurs when a new niche appears and an existing species evolves to fill it. Things don't just randomly appear and fill niches just like that."

Let's look at the concept of a perfect world deteriorating into a more harsh environment. This would have happened quickly after the fall of man. Natural selection would have happened very quickly. These animals had better have adapted quickly and selected properly in order for them to survive and have offspring. Obviously now that process would have slowed down considerably now that everything has fallen into place and animals are pretty much fully adapted into their environments. Back then adaptions would have been performed every generation. Short haired mammals would have died in cold environments while long haired varieties would have survived. Simple fundamentals and a little common sense tell us that speciation can happen quickly... if there's a lot of environmental change. This could have been the case (like the Bible illustrates for us), whereas now everything has remained constant for thousands of years. You don't even need rationalism to tell you adaption can happen quickly. Look at the scientific evidence. Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action. During drought years as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds were selected. This was due to the fact that the finches with smaller beaks starved and died. Grant estimates that it would only take 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years, says Grant.

Rocker, there is plenty of genetic information loss. One information-losing process occurs in sexually reproducing organisms. A newly formed organism only inherits half of the information from each parent. As each generation passes to the next, genetic information is lost. There are other ways information is lost. It'a a very common phenomenon that's scientifically observed, unlike the gain of genetic information.

I'm out of time. If I missed anything I'll come back later. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

I saw a show on those finches on the National Geographic Channel. While those finches may have been physically different they were far from being different species. There are variations in the sizes of body parts in every species, including man... we are all different. So just because these finches had larger beaks to handle seeds during drought doesnt mean they are becoming new species. New species are genetically, not just physically different. Sure a new species may be evolving but not in the amount of time you say. If it went that fast, we would have noticed it already... scientists could isolate a population of whatever animal on an island or something and create new species at their leisure...

I could use that same example for evolution... using selection as driving evolution. Three finches lived on an island... during El Nino a 4th species arrived due to lush begetation and lots of food. The population would have grown from a few pairs to say 100 in a few generations. When the drought began, only the finches born with larger bills could survive... that way only large-billed finches would be able to breed. After more generations these finches may have no need for flight or may be a different color. This species is now so genetically distinct from the ancestor population that it is now a new species... Selection has driven speciation and evolution has caused the genetic change that was selected for...

If you believe in selection, then why don't you believe that maybe life went the same way. i mean this selection over billions of years creates lots of new species in the same way as the finches do. And the amount of species that have existed on this planet supports the fact that speciation may have went at a rate you say... but the rate would have to be MUCH faster than you say for all of the species on our planet to have existed in the span of 10000 years! I mean 1,200 years to make a small change in a finch, try the millions of other species....... <br>

The finches are different species, I am talking about variations within one species. The variations don't mean that they are new species...

<br>

----- lancer when you said:
"
"A newly formed organism only inherits half of the information from each parent. As each generation passes to the next, genetic information is lost. There are other ways information is lost. It'a a very common phenomenon that's scientifically observed, unlike the gain of genetic information."

did you study meiosis at all, you get half of the genes from each parent making a full set so nothing is lost, im assuming you dont even know about crossing over that occurs in the metaphase one and metaphase two parts of sexual cell division that also serve to produce more genetic variation. nothing is lost, it's just mixed around in meiosis. so i suggest that your refutation is completely invalid due to lack of education in biology. or simply did you just mistype something, ill let you redeem yourself here, however you lost serious smart points.

ill break it down:

46/2=23
46/2=23
23+23=46 and hence a full set of genetic information


ATTENTION ALL::::::::::::::::::

i will give THREE examples that you have all seen in your lifetime that genetic information can be gained through mutation. you have all heard of these cases and you might even know someone with such a situation so listen up:

one is known as the metafemale she has 3 x chromosomes and advantages are a heightened ammune system no known disadvantages (23rd pair becomes triplet)

klienfelder's? syndrome (human male) XYY far more aggressive, more testosterone. shortened lifespan (23rd pair becomes triplet)

third example i will use down's syndrome because of how well known it is.
again there is a triplet instaed of a pair and we all know what the effects of this are.

all three are gained genetic information.

any rebuttles because i can come up with more, rarer and less known, but still more.

<br>


-----I slit the sheet the sheet I slit and on the slitted sheet i sit. there I said it.----

rocker, let's look at blood types for this example of how information is lost. Consider a human couple with one child, where the mother had the AB blood group and the father had the O blood group (both alleles are O and recessive). So the child would have either AO or BO alleles, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the child's genetic information. The child would not have the AB group. Explain how this is not the case. It seems very clear to me. No I haven't studied biology that much. Two different sources told me that genetic loss is common and is observed (one book and one website). I don't see how repeating what I heard from scientists causes me a loss of "smart points", but whatever.

Mutations don't have the effects that evolutionists think they have. Geneticists Dan L. Lindsley and E.H. Grell at the Carnegie Institution of Washington began breeding the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster soon after the turn of the century, Since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless. None of them produce a more successful fruit fly.

Biologist Lane Lester: A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation. Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations.

SPITfire...

"New species are genetically, not just physically different."

What makes up the building blocks of any creature's physical features? Genetics. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

lancer sorry about the smart points comment, i get pissy when i drink and post.

but because a gene is recessive never means it's lost, otherwise recessive genes would dissapear such as color blindness, vulnerablility to prostate cancer both sex linked on the X chromosome. it's not lost just mixed i think that is where the misunderstanding is. <br>


-----I slit the sheet the sheet I slit and on the slitted sheet i sit. there I said it.----

Let me rephrase that... physical differences by themselves do not constitute new species. Only by comparing DNA sequences between species can be determine if they are distinct species... also most species only reproduce with members of their own... not always the case but hybrids are always infertile. Not all genes are physical... many are hidden or inactive in an organism.

I suggest you take a look at the Walking with Cavemen show on tonite... it would be interesting to hear all your opinions... even if you don't agree with it... its not like God is gonna smite you or anything



<br>

<to rocker> that shrimp probably is superior to us...only human arrogance would assume it's not.
<to lancer>
1. symbiosis. Two different species--especially in the unicelluar categores, can utilize each other and combine their respective dna if it benefits both species--why do you think cellular mitochondria and cholorplasts have some genetic matreial with them? also, why are they structually and metabolically similar to ble-green algæ and aerobic bacteria?

The further you step up i the unicellular worls, you can see colonies of said single-celled organizms living together. it doesn't take much to go from that step to a multicellular organism.

further, about the information lost analogy and blood types--it doesn't always work at a loss.

My dad was blood type B+
My mom was blood type A-

I turned out to be AB+ in other words, i gained...

plus, loss and gain are relative int he context in which you take them. an advantage in one area could be a disadvantage in another--skin tone is a prime example--it's why "northern" people like finnish, norse, icelandic, irish, et al, are usually pale skinned. They need less sun to synthesize vitamine D, and the sun is weak so it doesn't do much harm.

Then, you look at sun-climate people, like australian aboriginies and africans--they are dark skinned, which is an extra shield for the sun, so the sun doesn't damage their skin as fast.

Reverse the scenario, a dark skinned person in a northern climate, and they have sun deficiency and cabin fever since they don't get enough sun.

And the pale person is now a lobster and will probably develop skin cancer.

Thus, what seems to be a "loss" may not be in a given context. I, for instance, never had my wisdom teeth come in--a genetic mutation. it makes me no less human, but in todays society, it could be an advantage, since i've seen how much pain it is having the damned things removed. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

So what about morals. Knowing the differences between right and wrong. How about our thoughts and our mind for instance, did those things evolve as well. I know that we can't study the mind and thoughts because they are not empirical but suggestions and ideas is what I'm looking for. If we just evolved why would life mean anything, why wouldn't everybody just do what they want. If there was no ultimate meaning in life then our actions here wouldn't mean any either.

--What do you think? <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/jive/thumbnail_x-mass02.jpg">

Well, brain size did evolve... the Walking with Cavemen show showed that Homo sapiens is the only hominid that was capable of advanced thinking and reason. We were by far the most advanced hominid and that is why we have survived to this day. Notice that all of the other hominids had a sharply sloped forehead... we are the only ones with a vertical forehead, showing we have a highly developed frontal lobe... this separates us from all other species on this planet. That is what gave us the capability of reason, intelligence, morals... etc. You could say God gave our species these capabilities and evolution gave us the brain to do it with...

<br>

Spitfire that's pretty skechy at best, but is does make sense in a way <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/jive/thumbnail_x-mass02.jpg">

It makes plenty of sense to me... haha All determined by fossil evidence...

We don't know exactly when the first Homo sapiens appeared on Earth. Why can't creationists come to a compromise and say that Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens on Earth? I mean the Bible doesnt tell us exactly when Adam and Eve were created right? <br>

Well obviously they were the first humans (H. sapiens) to you guys but why do you deny the existence of all the other hominids? You are so rigid in your belief in the Bible that you are not willing to modify your theory to make it more acceptable... I mean if you said that God created at many points in our history then that would account for the many periods of speciation in history. If you admitted the Earth was billions of years old God could have still created it but it would fit the evidence better... If you admitted that the global flood was only interpreted as global then maybe it would be possible... You would have a much better argument if you maybe actually blended creation with the evidence...

<br>

Well, anyone who pays attention when they read the Bible would notice that Adam and Eve are "the first" but certainly not the only. Otherwise, who was Cain afraid of? When God tells Cain that he will be cast out of the garden for his murder of Abel, Cain says that anyone who comes upon him, will slay him... If they were the only people, who then would do this slaying?

I think of them more as a political entity.. The First family, perhaps royalty, or a position of authority. I might be wrong about that, but it seems to fit.