I agree that our voices are not coherent. Mainly its because religion contradicts with a huge range of topics.
No it's not. There isnt a switch you can turn on and off. Can you GRASP the notion that evolution is a gradual process and the only way to determine when a new species is formed is by looking at the bigger picture? There is no need to explain any further. The answer im expecting to hear from you is either a yes or a no.
which is false (google it).
So we came from Adam and Eve? or later Noah and either one of his wives? It is entirely possible that traits such as skin color came from our own ancestors. Probably was. But to point to a single ancestor, you will need to show more proof of how this single ancestor carries a multitude of genetic diversity. He would probably need to carry ALL human traits that we have from the start. He would also have to live in a place where ALL those human traits would be used because natural selection dictates that if a trait is not fully utilised, it will be discarded.
For example, melanin is the primary cause for skin color. In places where sunlight is prevalent, such as Africa, melanin is produced more and therefore Africans have black skin. This also acts as "natural sun-block" and prevents skin cancer. Natural selection will favour those who have black skin for survival in Africa. When the sun doesnt shine bright such as in Greenland, less melanin will be needed and if a community were to evolve in Greenland, they will be fair skinned. This also allows them to recieve precious Vitamin D from the weak sunlight preventing bone diseases like rickets. Again, natural selection will favour those with fair skin for survival in Greenland. I've purposely taken the extremes because you need to prove how humans have survived the harshest of conditions if we came from a single ancestor that cant be either extremely black or extremely white and expect to survive conditions which require the opposite traits.
Another interesting point of note.
God created all land animals on the 6th day. Including the dinosaurs. So according to the bible, dinosaurs would have been living and breathing amongst men. Looking through history, we do sort of see accounts of dinosaurs in writing and ancient drawings such as Dragons and sea serpeants. But that also means we SHOULD be finding human fossils amongst the dinosaurs (solid hard evidence). Also, Death, disease and suffering all came after Adams sin. If living things cant die or suffer before Adams sin, then explain how the plants we ate would not have died or even suffered. Because we all know that that things are dead by the time they come out of a digestive system, probably suffered extremely if it went in alive. This shows the bible is so full of conflicting and contradicting claims. Also, it shows that someone is telling a lie. Either the evolutionists with their claim that dinosaurs ruled the world millions of years ago long before the first humans appeared or the biblical account that dinosaurs were walking with men 6000 years ago. Also, plants are either living things or just artificial food.
This is what I meant when I said it's about finding out the truth.
We are similarly related to chimpanzes as we were to neanderthals. Go have sex with one of them and let me know how the baby turns out.
Who's to say that we cant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
The key is that it is POSSIBLE to outer-species breed. Therefore, you cannot discard the notion that neanderthals and humans were able to mate.
The difference between what I claim as evidence as compared to what you claim in religion is that I have scientific backing, at least in theory and also by experiments with other species breeding such as the horse and donkey case.
Edited by Riddle, 09 April 2010 - 05:24 AM.