what's your thought on this

Originally posted by Blackamp
no, that's wrong. if two multicellular organisms can mate and produce offspring that is viable in the sense that it can itself reproduce, then they are the same species.

to Blackamp

An pit bull, and a labradore, are two different species of of the dog family and they can mate without problem.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to ProperKnob

I am making a point, and it doesnt matter if i say Newyorker or Australian or Aboriginal,......the thing is to know what the point is, and i think you do.

It is obvious that a pygmy and a white corcasian American from New York, are different speices of humans.

vishva

You're not making a point.

You continually make vague statements and when asked to clarify them you either ignore the request or make another vague statement.

Aborigines, New Yorkers (as you call them), English, Asian, Pygmies etc etc are all the same species Homo sapeins.

If you have any evidence which proves this wrong i'd like to see it. Otherwise it's painfully obvious, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Blackamp

An pit bull, and a labradore, are two different species of of the dog family and they can mate without problem.

vishva

Incorrect again.

They are different breeds, not species.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're not making a point.

You continually make vague statements and when asked to clarify them you either ignore the request or make another vague statement.

Aborigines, New Yorkers (as you call them), English, Asian, Pygmies etc etc are all the same species Homo sapeins.

If you have any evidence which proves this wrong i'd like to see it. Otherwise it's painfully obvious, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about.

to ProperKnob

I apolagize, i have a problem with semantics, but what the real point is back in the very first statement is this.

The bone diggers found some bones from a pygmy, and some bones from a different type of homo sapian, and wrongly presumed that they where morphing from one to the other, when they were actually, two very different types of homo sapians all along.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The bone diggers found some bones from a pygmy, and some bones from a different type of homo sapian, and wrongly presumed that they where morphing from one to the other, when they were actually, two very different types of homo sapians all along.

But why do you believe that to be the case? Are you saying that animals / humans never change over generations? Do you also claim that pit bulls and a Labradors do not have a common ancestor?
Or are you just saying that in the case of humans it didn't happen? If so, why do you believe that ie do you have evidence to the contrary, or is it a guess, or what?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Incorrect again.

They are different breeds, not species.

exactly. pit bulls, labradors, chihuahuas, German shepherds - all domestic dogs are of the species Canis lupus familiaris, and can mate and produce viable offspring, although it probably doesn't happen between a male Chihuahua and a female German shepherd very often.

all human beings - Caucasians, Africans, Asians, pygmies and so on are of the species Homo sapiens sapiens

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to ProperKnob

I apolagize, i have a problem with semantics, but what the real point is back in the very first statement is this.

The bone diggers found some bones from a pygmy, and some bones from a different type of homo sapian, and wrongly presumed that they where morphing from one to the other, when they were actually, two very different types of homo sapians all along.

vishva

Your learning. You can't have different species of Homo sapiens.

But what about the fossil remains that pre-date Homo sapiens? How does that fit into your groundbreaking theory?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your learning. You can't have different species of Homo sapiens.

But what about the fossil remains that pre-date Homo sapiens? How does that fit into your groundbreaking theory?

To ProperKnob

I beleive that the bone finders had an agenda to prove that everything is a product of evolution, so they mocked up what ever evidence they have to support the theory.

But where getting off track here, because my main gripe is, that the evolutionist say everthing came from nothing, and i say it did not, but there was a spiritual catylist behind everything.

If you say to me that there is a spiritual creative power behind the evolution of the species, then i dont have a problem with that, but if you say there is no power there, then i am against it.

vishva

Originally posted by chessartist
Were does the prehistoric man come into god's plan? do you think god has let man develope and grow into what we are today or do you think went people find these bones they're just a combination of man and animal bones put to together to form what we think is early man?

Prehistoric?

What does that mean?

That idea will put your mind into a box.

The real evidence of history is that man appeared suddenly.

Evolution is a theory, and a very poor one at that. It is amazing how much information about something that can't be proven has been generated about evolution.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
To ProperKnob

I beleive that the bone finders had an agenda to prove that everything is a product of evolution, so they mocked up what ever evidence they have to support the theory.

But where getting off track here, because my main gripe is, that the evolutionist say everthing came from nothing, and i say it did not, but there was a spiritual catyli ...[text shortened]... e a problem with that, but if you say there is no power there, then i am against it.

vishva

You're not listening.

The theory of evolution makes no claim on the origin of life, it is the process by which we see the diversification of life on this planet.

As i've said before, both the Catholic Church and the Church of England accept the theory of evolution. If they can meld spirituality with it, i don't see what your problem is.

Originally posted by josephw
Prehistoric?

What does that mean?

That idea will put your mind into a box.

The real evidence of history is that man appeared suddenly.

Evolution is a theory, and a very poor one at that. It is amazing how much information about something that can't be proven has been generated about evolution.

The real evidence of history is that we descended from apes, there are fossils and massive amounts of genetic data to back this up.

It can be proven and has been. You just choose to ignore it.

What do you think they teach on evolutionary biology courses?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The real evidence of history is that we descended from apes, there are fossils and massive amounts of genetic data to back this up.

It can be proven and has been. You just choose to ignore it.

You are mistaken knobster.

The evidence has been massaged to make it appear as though man descended from apes.

There are no intermediate links in the record. The theory of evolution is flawed, and cannot be proven.

Originally posted by josephw
You are mistaken knobster.

The evidence has been massaged to make it appear as though man descended from apes.

There are no intermediate links in the record. , and cannot be proven.

The evidence has been massaged to make it appear as though man descended from apes.

Evidence please.

There are no intermediate links in the record.

Yes there are, and they show a clear progression from ape to human. I can list the fossils names if you so choose. There is also the DNA evidence to back this up.

The theory of evolution is flawed

Prove it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]The evidence has been massaged to make it appear as though man descended from apes.

Evidence please.

There are no intermediate links in the record.

Yes there are, and they show a clear progression from ape to human. I can list the fossils names if you so choose. There is also the DNA evidence to back this up.

The theory of evolution is flawed

Prove it.[/b]

My face is getting blue again. 😉

Let me tell ya, if I ever find out that man evolved, I won't deny it.

But until then...I believe life and all that exists came about instantaneously though the act of creation by the almighty. If God chose to cause man to come into existence through the evolutionary process, I'll have no problem with that.

But evolution is still just a theory.

Originally posted by josephw
But evolution is still just a theory.

Correction: You religiously belive that "evolution is still just a theory."
In your religion you can believe whatever you want.
Scientifically evolution is a fact.