Sentences with phrase «of human evolution does»

The account of the players and theories in the field of human evolution does highlight how much of the debate involves mere name games, with lumpers and splitters arguing ad nauseam about the same few specimens widely scattered through space and time.

The task, for example, of grafting the history of salvation onto to the phylogenetic tree of human evolution does not belong to the teaching office of the Church.

Not exact matches

You're talking about the type of «evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even come close to the complication of macro evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.

It is part and parcel of Ham's argument that it was 6, 24 - hour days, that god did this 6,000 365 - day - years ago, that humans did not evolve / evolution does not take place.

Atheists aren't innocent either: eugenics, the belief that certain races do not deserve to live because they could hinder the evolution of the human species.

The concept of God did not spring out of thin air - intelligent humans created him and then thousands of years later used the idea to explain what they did not understand and / or like about evolution.

Technophobe,: Christians, Muslims and Jews do believe in micro-evolution (the evolution inside species) but none of these religions believe in evolutionist macro evolution, the evolution of organisms changing species (ie, fish turning into reptiles, then turning to humans)

I don't have to use my imagination to know that we have endless evidence showing the evolution of many types of species, including humans.

But I want to respond to people throwing out examples such as: The human body is too complex to have formed from evolution or where did the universe come from, both must have come from god because none of you can explain it.

How do Adam and Eve relate to what we have learned about the evolution of modern humans from Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis?

Most importantly, note this: I am a Christian, I'm gay, I'm a recovering alcoholic, I believe in Evolution, I believe the universe is 13 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.5 or so billion years old, I believe man evolved from lower primates and that Adam was the first man who God gave a soul and sentience, I do not believe in hell but I do believe in Satan, I do not believe the Bible is a book of rules meant to imprison man or condemn him but that it is rather a «Human Existence for Dummies» guide, I believe Christ was the son of God but I do not believe Christianity is the only «valid» religion, I do not believe atheists will go to hell, while the English Bible says God should be feared, the Hebrew word used for fear, «yara», such as that used in the Book of Job, actually means respect / reverence, not fear as one would fear death or a spider.

Of course the sequencing is not quite right, because the poem was written / inspired (take your pick) before science did its work.But the intuitive observer could see a clear evolution form plants to animals to human life, with continuities and differentiations.

Let me help Nathan out a bit... Christ, if you are a medical student as still think that the theory of evolution claims that the human body happened «randomly,» please leave school now and do not endanger people's lives.

actually you do nt have to prove the many deities or Gods that they really exist, because they really had existed in their times, They are part of the evolutionary process for us humans to transcend to higher consciousness.To simplify the analogy, when we were young and we are in the lower grade school, we were taught simple subjects not advance literatures but simple stories even mythicals, The same with religion, thousands of years ago when there was no science yet, primitive people had a religion, of course man made faiths to conform with their state of mind or intellect.But later atfter thousands of years we evolve into a more educated people and so new concept of God again was presented to them, another man made concept, and this go on and on, until a few thiousand years ago.monotheism, Judaism, christianity, islam, buddhism, etc also evolved, But with the accelerated evolution, these faith again is threatend with obsolesencs because of of scientific developments and education.In panthroteistic faith, the future religion needs to conform to evolutionary process, This proves that God is always there guiding the change.And it his will that made this a reality in history since the begining of the universe 13 billion years ago, and this will continue to exist until He will completely fulfill His will to infinity, Thats PANTHROTHEISM, the futue, man made religion under His guidance through scientifiic evoluition after the Bi Bang

Yeah but they want to teach the controversy... you know, how the earth might be only 10,000 years old (no it isn't) and that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together (no they didn't) and that evolution has no evidence (yes it does) or that there was a global flood (no there wasn't) or that the earth might be flat or the center of the universe or a million other wrong headed theories that fly in the face of the evidence.

(Answers: 1) because they lived and died millions of years before humans and extant forms; 2) because humans and dinosaurs never coexisted; 3) this simply didn't happen, but the creationist response is apparently, and ironically, «hyper - evolution» from severely bottle - necked gene pools; and 4) because we share a common ancestor with egg - laying organisms)

Of course we know that this evolution was promoted by humans but it doesn't really matter.

It does make possible a quantum jump in the degree to which humankind can take control of the evolutionary process, including the evolution of human beings.

Organisms with a spine do not automatically become human, human isn't the goal of vertebrate evolution.

What I'm really going to do is to rid the gene pool of its 10,000 worst contributors, in an effort to speed up the evolution of the human race (yes: I made the system automatic, so that I didn't have to bother diddling with it at every moment: Darwin was right, but the process turned out slower than I expected, and I got bored, hence the urge to speed things up a tad).

For Bergson, like many process thinkers (Peirce, James and Dewey come particularly to mind), the entire concept of «necessity» only makes sense when applied internally to abstractions the intellect has already devised.11 Of course, one can tell an evolutionary story about how the human intellect came to be a separable function of consciousness that emphasizes abstraction (indeed, that is what Bergson does in Creative Evolution), but if one were to say that the course of development described in that story had to occur (i.e., necessarily) as it did, then one would be very far from Bergson's view (CE 218, 236, 270of «necessity» only makes sense when applied internally to abstractions the intellect has already devised.11 Of course, one can tell an evolutionary story about how the human intellect came to be a separable function of consciousness that emphasizes abstraction (indeed, that is what Bergson does in Creative Evolution), but if one were to say that the course of development described in that story had to occur (i.e., necessarily) as it did, then one would be very far from Bergson's view (CE 218, 236, 270Of course, one can tell an evolutionary story about how the human intellect came to be a separable function of consciousness that emphasizes abstraction (indeed, that is what Bergson does in Creative Evolution), but if one were to say that the course of development described in that story had to occur (i.e., necessarily) as it did, then one would be very far from Bergson's view (CE 218, 236, 270of consciousness that emphasizes abstraction (indeed, that is what Bergson does in Creative Evolution), but if one were to say that the course of development described in that story had to occur (i.e., necessarily) as it did, then one would be very far from Bergson's view (CE 218, 236, 270of development described in that story had to occur (i.e., necessarily) as it did, then one would be very far from Bergson's view (CE 218, 236, 270).

As reason sets human beings apart from all other animals, it seems that our rational nature can not be explained by evolution alone, for we do not find stages of lesser reflective selfconsciousness before the human species but evolution requires only gradual changes at a time.

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns — This book came along and just the right time for me.

The onward drive of «Evolution'therefore, does not lie in material mutation, nor in any fundamental change to human nature and its laws of good and true.

Oh, next time I go to the zoo, I'll say HI to some of your relatives that didn't evolve Mr. Catholic Christian believing in «An evolving creation»; where the principles of biological and social evolution are indeed part of the design of an intelligent creator who is NOT all powerful and not «NICE» in the Human context, but «benevolent» at a cosmic scale.

The term moderate evolution might therefore be applied to a theory which simply inquires into the biological reality of man in accordance with the formal object of the biological sciences as defined by their methods and which affirms a real genetic connection between that human biological reality and the animal kingdom, but which also in accordance with the fundamental methodological principles of those sciences, can not and does not attempt to assert that it has made a statement adequate to the whole reality of man and to the origin of this whole reality.

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns (see my review)

To get a proper and adequate understanding of human freedom, one has to see man in the total context of evolution, for freedom did not start with man; it had its evolutionary roots at the infrahuman level.

I maintained that, contrary to the commonly expressed or tacitly accepted view, the era of active evolution did not end with the appearance of the human zoological type: for by virtue of his acquirement of the gift of individual reflection Man displays the extraordinary quality of being able to totalize himself collectively upon himself, thus extending on a planetary scale the fundamental vital process which causes matter, under Certain conditions, to organize itself in elements which are ever more complex physically, and psychologically ever more centrated.

How come we still have monkey's... I guess they do not get CNN saying they have evolved... The only solution is that gay marriage will pass and everyone becomes gay and that will solve the problem of the evolution atheist debate since the human race will be extinct.

But it is here, in my view, that the importance becomes manifest of an intuitive notion which, timidly evolved less than fifty years ago by a small group of human minds, is now beginning to pervade twentieth century thought as rapidly as did the idea of evolution in the nineteenth century.

Has nothing to do with actual fossils that demonstrate an evolution of a single species over time; whether dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, or humans.

We do not deny or circumscribe the Creator, because we hold he has created the self - acting originating human mind, which has almost a creative gift; much less then do we deny or circumscribe His power, if we hold that He gave matter such laws as by their blind instrumentality moulded and constructed through innumerable ages the world as we see it... Mr Darwin's theory need not then be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill... At first sight I do not see that «the accidental evolution or organic beings» is inconsistent with divine design - It is accidental to us, not to God.»

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins By Peter Enns.

Generis: «For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God» [italics added].

If it is true that, bound by the collective interaction of its liberties, the human social group can not escape from certain irreversible laws of evolution, does this mean that, observed along its axis of «greatest complexity» (i.e. increasing liberty) the World is coiling upon itself with as much sureness as it is in other respects radiating outwards and explosively expanding?

Since humans are the product of evolution, Adam and Eve did not exist.

We are the latest dominant emergent in the earth's evolution, and so all that we humans do and think and say is relevant for our understanding of the cosmos out of which we evolved.

now, you can try and try to show that indeed, no intelligent person does nt believe in evolution as you have defined it, namely necessarily excluding any external entity To which I would simply point to the scores of scientists who believe in ID / Theistic evolution, also including Francis Collins the leader of the Human Genome Project and the author of «The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief»

Yes, something quite amazing happened in the case of the evolution of humans, but that doesn't mean that we didn't in fact evolved from the same animals other modern primates evolved from.

Certainly consciousness does not exist at the level of atoms and electrons, nor does reflective self - awareness seem to appear in evolution until the human species comes onto the scene.

Amen.The thing is too many people from both sides try to disprove the other, Scientist (well some) will say there is no God Ala Hawkings here and then some believers will say that evolution or anything pertaining to science that they don't understand is false.I don't believe that science and God are mutually exclusive.For me personally science helps to explain a lot of things regarding creation, almost like giving me a window into how creative God is.I believe that God uses science to show us how awesome he is.To me science does not disprove Gods existence it actually reaffirms it on a human logic level, for me.You may disagree, that's fine, but this is just how I see it.

Atheists keep trying to apply scientifc rules of evidence where they don't belong — to matters of human affairs — yet are perfectly content to throw away the same rules when it suits their purposes (e.g., evolution).

Pope Pius XII declared that «the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions... take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter --[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God» (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)»

You can do so much better than to resort to such stock canards as «If humans evolved from monkeys when you know full well what the theory of evolution says regarding the multiple species of primates.

As far as human beings are concerned, evolution does not have to be the only logical explanation as it should not be beyond the capacity of God to design and create them without evolution.

why don't you start with why humans invented religion in the first place, the origins of the books of the bible, the multiple «christ» (copied) stories throughout the history of time, fossil evidence of evolution of man and all species, all the discrepancies in the bible, knowledge of all the gods that humans have believed in through recorded history, the political uses of christianity in the time of it's origin, the fact that every other religion has followers who believe just as strongly in their own god / book, that fact that if you had been born in another part of the world you would be a different religion and going to «hell», and that a good, kind, omniscient god wouldn't allow all the suffering and evil to happen, and wouldn't need «help» as christians like to tout... and then we'll get to all these ridiculous fools.

There's some great research being done on the topic of evolution, especially the claim that there are only so many differences between other primates and humans genomes (I don't remember the exact number).

Those who do not want to believe in evolution do not have to, but it is inconsistent for religious persons to believe that any aspect of the human body whatsoever is perfect, even if it was designed without any evolution at work.

As does the struggle to understand hundreds of other deep topics related to the human mind, the history of life and the evolution of our cosmos.