Theory of Evolution

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by lenhattien, Nov 20, 2020.

  1. that's a good observation. radiocarbon dating is subject to flaws and calls my mind to question millions and billions of years as the age of things. and time? what do we know about time except the sun rises, sets, and rises again and we have "a day". right now the earth is spinning at an incredible speed of ~1000 mph at the equator. the earth itself is traveling 67,000 mph around the sun and one complete cycle constitutes" a year". our solar system encapsulated inside the milky way galaxy is traveling an estimated 490,000 mph. and our milky way galaxy, which is one of known billions of galaxies, is estimated to be 150,000 - 180,000 light years in diameter. "time" is relevant only to the dimension of space-time for where we are at any given second.

    so yeah, i agree with the postulated academic fossil record being askew. "they" don't know how old anything is beyond a few thousand years - it's all an educated guess.

    but even still, if we agree the fossil record is correct among the several so-called "missing links" is tue so-called "evolution" of Neanderthal and Homo Sapien into our current HU-man form termed Homo Sapien-Sapien. there are 10's of thousands of undocumented years of how "we" got to where we are. it's almost as if one day, "poof" there were domesticated animals, writing, music, agriculture, philosophy, mathematics, cosmology, etc.

    there are three popular schools of though: evolution, creationism, "third-party", aka ancient aliens. i think the right answer lies in a blend of all three.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  2. i like most everything you said and its nice to be able to debate this subject like adults .

    Hi honestly I don't believe fossil dating is correct , again we can look up research that supports our belief's .
    and side step the info that doesn't back our beliefs too.

    I find everyone's beliefs to be very much like a religion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. well at least two of the popular schools of thought are religion imo - evolution and creationists. i class the evolutionists as "religious" because of their zeal and their lack of open mindedness. i consider myself more esoteric in my thinking on life in that God is in fact unknowable (to date even though He walked in the Garden of Eden as it's been written), and my previous thoughts on radiocarbon dating and time, throw in a few missing links and a little bit of scientific documentation of "not from this planet" observations released to the public in the past couple of years, and i'd say the guess work field is getting narrower in scope.

    i find it both logical and comforting to think about.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. There is everything to consider and when we really research this topic normally it leads to more questions then answers .
    It was a nice conversation , thank you
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. #25 Smingz, Dec 27, 2020
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2020
    Lol your response failed in the first two sentences. :icgreen:
     
  6. Are there still people that don't believe in evolution?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Unlike religion you do not need to believe in evolution. its based in fact?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Jamie you ranting fool :)

    Please submit any alternative to evolution that has any factual proof?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Evolution is based on a theory that requires imagination to make a connection at every turn.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. I agree.. but between the facts is the difference between the two options.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. your missing the beauty of the universe. All things have their place and purpose. It all works together to sustain its self.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. depending on the meaning you imply you can count me as someone who does not believe that modern HU-man "evolved" to his current homo sapiens state from an ameoba, a fish, a bird, or an ape. HU-man has "evolved" socially, technologically, etc. but as a species having crawled from the oceans or having swung in the trees of africa while the rest of the planet waited on HU-man to walk upright and make tools, domesticate animals, plant crops, build cities as a byproduct of HU-man natural evolution? nah. didn't happen that way. jmo.
     
  13. So you think that we were created? By a higher being that always existed just for the hell of it.

    Do you ever watch a discovery channel about chimps, orangutans, apes etc and see yourself in their image?

    There are so many obvious connections between humans and nature eg chimps etc any alternative is a fairytale in comparison.
     
  14. Religion has been nothing but a curse on this world.
     
    • Like Like x 1

  15. humans and chimpanzees are HUman's closest DNA relative 98%+ same dna but that doesnt mean we're cousins. dna similar to humans can be found in every living thing on the planet but it doesnt mean some of us evolved from a plant, some of us evolved from a wolf, or perhaps was evolved from the chimp and bonobo.

    no smingz i dont think "god" made mankind from clay or sand or whatever, and i don't believe in that by chance all the carbon, protein, amino, and sugar molecular chains just happened along. no sir, i'm more of an Ancient Aliens theorist. perhaps.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Care to elaborate?
     
  17. #38 Possuum, Jan 14, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2021
    it's a wide and deep theory that explores ancient megalithic structures and "who" it was that could have possibly created them. these structures are located all over the planet. it's a theory that suggests that the so-called "missing link" in human "evolution" is in fact of extraterrestrial origins. it's a theory that attempts to explain cave drawings showing beings that appear not human as we are, and objects that appear to be not of this earth, that are dated to up to an estimated 40,000 years old.

    there are anomalies of mega structures that could not be constructed using the machinery and technology of today but there these objects are - someone built them - and they are still standing. so, the whole idea of the human species and the planet being ~6000+ years old as biblical scholars would have us believe with the biblical story of creation kind of falls flat, or, the science is 100% wrong. no likely the science is too far off the correct mark. do you ever think about the concept of historical time? a few hundred years ago, maybe 2000 years ago? what about 10,000 years ago, or 20, or, 40 thousand years ago? surely there were intelligent beings of some kind here or we wouldn't see the evidence that they were.

    Chariots of the Gods? The Twelfth Planet? The Missing Link? these are all subjects of great fascination to people who think outside of the "how did we get here" question. what is time to us? revolution of the planet and the planet revolving around our planetary sun. what does time become when we leave this solar system or when we leave the Milky Way galaxy?

    Ancient Aliens - "those who came to earth from above" Anunnaki. recall in the biblical story of Genesis, first came Adam, then came Eve. they had two sons Cain and Abel. so the first chapters of Genesis the world was dark and void, and then came four people; Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. the story tells us that Cain killed Able and Cain was banished to the city of Nod where he took himself a wife. who were the people that built the city Nod? they were the ancient Sumerians where they had been living for a couple thousand years.

    the entire historical record is muddied up and quite by design imo. i find the theories of Sitchen and Von Daniken much more plausible than Darwinism. if the Vatican would open it's library to the world we would find the truth i believe.

    edit: changed Ur to Nod.
     
  18. Of course, that's what you end up with when you begin with a muddied version.
    Adam lived 930 years and begat sons and daughters. ~One of them, or even one of their offspring would have been Cains wife.
    Cain went to live in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Nod means a place of wandering.) Which would suggest that he took his wife with him when it says he had sexual relations with his wife and had a son, built a city and named it after his son, Hanokh. (Enoch) The way the story reads does not suggest he went to the land of wandering to take himself a wife. He went out there, had relations with his wife, begat a son, built a city and named it after his son. From there starts recording genealogy the rest of the chapter. The next chapter covers genealogy through Noah, and next chapter after that is the flood. Ur ain't even a place till after the flood. Abraham was from Ur.
     
    • Like Like x 1

  19. thank you for the edit.

    i think the first 6 chapters of the Book of Genesis beg many more questions than they provide answers to in the story. it is interesting that humans during that era lived for hundreds of years. how do we account for that? idk.
     

Share This Page