What species did humans evolve from?

Originally posted by Joe Fist
I have no clue what you are trying to say here:

[b] A lack of success in persuading is not sufficient for me to stop, given the stakes.

Okay I suppose you mean that if you do not "witness" to the non-believers like myself we will be sent to Hell and it is your duty as a Christian to do everything in your power to prevent that from happen ...[text shortened]... lly anyone who wants to who is reading this please give your explanation of the above statement.[/b]

How was that flowery or mystical?

Because I was born without extensive knowledge of the spiritual, but was reared learning knowledge of the physical, I first had to concede that God might not exist.

Atheists also have to concede God may exist, first because He cannot be disproven and secondly because empirical data points to Him.

Would you mind sharing the story of your conversion? Please include the age at which you discovered God and the circumstances under which you were born again. I promise I will not cut it up or criticize it. I'm just interested.

Originally posted by Darfius
We know conclusively when Snoopy, William Shatner and coke cans began existing. This is not the case for God and He demands more respect as a hypothesis.

We know when mankind developed the cartoon character "Snoopy", and Coca Cola and when the man born to be the famous actor "William Shatner" happened...subtle difference.

Obviously you should understand that I don't believe those to be true but the point is from your experience you have an individual conception of God. Millions of people have the same experience as you and millions more do not. If what I said was considered disrespectful then I apologize but I am not sure if you fully realize how disrespectful you tend to be towards anyone who does not believe as you do?

I'm not attempting to call you out or ridicule you but this is what you and the few other passionate Christians all do:

1.You create this threads with blanket statements that in one way or the other attempt to prove the existence of the Christian God.

2.You and the others are rebuked (many times viciously) by every available method possible.

3.You and the others reply by usually either quoting Bible scripture or some obscure opinion from some Christian website.

I don't think it is your intent to be disrespectful but not allowing for any other beliefs beyond your own is.

Originally posted by Darfius
How was that flowery or mystical?

Because I was born without extensive knowledge of the spiritual, but was reared learning knowledge of the physical, I first had to concede that God might not exist.

Atheists also have to concede God may exist, first because He cannot be disproven and secondly because empirical data points to Him.

You wrote:

"I am forced due to my presence in a material world to consider materialistic reasons for things, Joe. It is the atheist that must allow the possiblity that God exists, as theists are forced to concede the possiblity He doesn't, before they become theists. "

Why must the atheist allow for the possibility that God exists? Why must you allow for the possibility that God does not? How is this a prerequisite?

The Atheist and Theist do not have to do anything. I imagine most atheists and theists have been confronted on what they believe at some point in their lives but concession is not required. The funny thing is if what you said was true, which I don't think it is, you have proven the point of being agnostic.

Most of the non believers have categorically denied and challenged the empirical data pointing to the Christian God.

Originally posted by telerion
Would you mind sharing the story of your conversion? Please include the age at which you discovered God and the circumstances under which you were born again. I promise I will not cut it up or criticize it. I'm just interested.

Sorry, but I will have to decline. It is in earlier threads if you're curious, but I'm too pressed for time right now.

I'm not attempting to call you out or ridicule you but this is what you and the few other passionate Christians all do:

1.You create this threads with blanket statements that in one way or the other attempt to prove the existence of the Christian God.

I present evidence. That's what atheists want me to do, so I do it.

2.You and the others are rebuked (many times viciously) by every available method possible.

I'll agree with the vicious part, but I won't agree that I've been corrected "by every method possible", such as with facts.

3.You and the others reply by usually either quoting Bible scripture or some obscure opinion from some Christian website.

Not true. For me, at least. And besides, the Bible is relevant to the dicsussion.

I don't think it is your intent to be disrespectful but not allowing for any other beliefs beyond your own is.

I do allow for them, I simply don't consider them valid. For instance, would you be angry at your teacher for correcting a mistake you made? Of course not. Don't be angry with me because I disagree with your position, show me why I should agree with it.

Why must the atheist allow for the possibility that God exists?

Because He can't be disproven and because some data makes it clear that Intelligent Design is the best theory.

Why must you allow for the possibility that God does not?

Because before one accepts Christ, one has only "evidence". Afterwards is when the proof abounds.

How is this a prerequisite?

If one wants to attain objectivity, those are prerequesite.

The Atheist and Theist do not have to do anything. I imagine most atheists and theists have been confronted on what they believe at some point in their lives but concession is not required. The funny thing is if what you said was true, which I don't think it is, you have proven the point of being agnostic.

Concession is required if one wishes to appear objective, rather than motivated by an agenda. And no, agnostics stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la, la, la'. There is no sense in being agnostic, with the claims atheist and theists make.

Most of the non believers have categorically denied and challenged the empirical data pointing to the Christian God.

Denied it yes. Provided sufficient reasons for denying? Nope.

Humans evolved from Hobbits, but growing evidence in Amerika suggests that we have yet to successfully adapt to the planet, or to each other. We've become pretty good at procreation, and we manage to kill most of our competitors; but the evidence that we've evolved beyond beasts grows thin.

Originally posted by Darfius
Sorry, but I will have to decline. It is in earlier threads if you're curious, but I'm too pressed for time right now.

Ok. I understand. Any idea which thread or about the time you wrote it? I have time constraints too, and you have written a great many posts since you signed up.

Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Why must the atheist allow for the possibility that God exists?

Because He can't be disproven and because some data makes it clear that Intelligent Design is the best theory.

Why must you allow for the possibility that God does not?

Because before one accepts Christ, one has only "evidence". Afterwards is when the proof abounds.
...[text shortened]... ing to the Christian God.[/b]

Denied it yes. Provided sufficient reasons for denying? Nope.[/b]

You know what? I think I am done with this and admit defeat. Congrats Darfius. As I was cutting and pasting your responses and contemplating what I was going to write back I started thinking "What's the point?"

I and others have had this same debate with you, blindfaith101, RBHILL, dj2becker for quite a long time now. I think it is stalemate but I imagine you will claim victory. Go for it, it's yours. I am a non-Christian heathen, so are most of my family and friends. As decent of people I like to think we are, I know we are bound for Hell. At least we will be together there, right?

Take care & may your God bless you as I am sure he does because you are a true follower of Christ

Fist

Originally posted by Joe Fist
You know what? I think I am done with this and admit defeat. Congrats Darfius. As I was cutting and pasting your responses and contemplating what I was going to write back I started thinking "What's the point?"

I and others have had this same debate with you, blindfaith101, RBHILL, dj2becker for quite a long time now. I think it is stalemate but ...[text shortened]... & may your God bless you as I am sure he does because you are a true follower of Christ

Fist

thats what i said.. but befor i got to started.. i also am a non-christian hethan.. but it doesnt stop me from crackn jokes at others expense..lol... but unless you like talking to walls... wich dont get me wrong.. i severely admire those with such devotion to there beliefs... but to activly try to coerse others to there side is almost to the point of desperation... to each there own.. nothing is going to convince many people to "change there ways"... im going to continue in my belief that all "worshiped dieties" ar a part of "The All"... and D is allways going to believe his god is the best thing since sliced bread.. but a agree... but.. it entertains... so carry on the debates.. at least it makes for good readn'...

Noitch!!

Originally posted by Joe Fist
You know what? I think I am done with this and admit defeat. Congrats Darfius. As I was cutting and pasting your responses and contemplating what I was going to write back I started thinking "What's the point?"

I and others have had this same debate with you, blindfaith101, RBHILL, dj2becker for quite a long time now. I think it is stalemate but ...[text shortened]... & may your God bless you as I am sure he does because you are a true follower of Christ

Fist

Please don't be angry with me, Joe. I have no interest in "winning". My motivation is love. Please believe that.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It depends on what you define "human" as. Homo sapiens sapiens probably evolved from Homo sapiens (archaic) which evolved from Homo erectus.

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

haven't been following this thread but here's a site that might be helpful.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html

Originally posted by Darfius
I'll agree with the vicious part, but I won't agree that I've been corrected "by every method possible", such as with facts.

Ahem, see that really long post on page [EDIT] 3 [/EDIT] that I posted, and that you chose to completely ignore? Some nice juicy facts there for you to get your head around.

D

Originally posted by frogstomp
haven't been following this thread but here's a site that might be helpful.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html

Thank you, this is "straight from the horse's mouth":

The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed. According to the first, the distribution of anatomical traits in modern human populations in different regions was inherited from local populations of Homo erectus and intermediate "archaic" forms. This "Multiregional Hypothesis" states that all modern humans evolved in parallel from earlier populations in Africa, Europe and Asia, with some genetic intermixing among these regions. Support for this comes from the similarity of certain minor anatomical structures in modern human populations and preceding populations of Homo erectus in the same regions.

A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."

Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

The Bible claims Adam and Eve were created ~50,000-100,000 years ago, and that later a Flood wiped out all humans but Noah and his wife, his 3 sons and their wives and that Noah was the man who contributed to the gene pool.

Science claims there is a mitochondrial Eve who existed ~100,000 years ago, and that later a single man contributed to the gene pool.

...