The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[defender_1611]

---

@noy: dont ask any proof from R_Forster kay even @slabdans ask him for proof he cant even provide. Basin nag google pa siguro na siya kay wala pa guro niya ma kaykayi ang proof nga atong gipangita from him.

[miket07]

@R_Forster

Naa ko question nimo bro. Kinsa gahimo nimo or diin man ka gikan?(imong parents parents, down to generations to generations diin man gikan hangtod maabot ta nga wala pay mga tao) Sa bacteria pud sila gikan? or naa lain explanation pud if asa gikan sila or asa gikan ang mga tao. Expound it clearly para ma convince nimo ang uban diri sa imong stand. Exchange lang ta mga infos diri gud

Asa naman answer ani sa na hingtungdan?

[R_Forster]

pagkatoytoy nimu brader...ang punto diha kay mendel's genetics and darwin's evolution goes hand in hand otherwise padung ras damgo tong kang darwin. nasaag naman ka? sobrahan kas katol? Lol
unya asa na lagi ang proof nga delusional si mendel..hoy! ay sig likay2x..

Cge na lang tag balik balik aning mendel nimo tanga?

Proof na delusional si mendel? Dugay na kaayo nako na gi tubag, Ang proof kay mu tuo gihapon siyag imaginary friend, dili lang basta basta mu tuo, Isa siya ka die hard uto uto anang fairytale bible ninyo. Mao nang proof. bulok.

Naa pa kay pa "hand in hand" diha, genetic ra to sa plants iyaha, wala siya nag hisgot sa evolution sa human spieces, kasabot ka? tanga, Maski wala pa na ma-tao nang ugok na mendel ninyo, ma diskobrehan gihapon na ni charles darwin na gikan sa unggoy ang modern humans.

Wala koy pakialam anang bugok na mendel nimo, in fact, na diskobrehan ra pud sa mga future scientists ang genetics without knowing the work of mendel. oplok ka. basura ra nang mendel nimo, ayaw cgeg panghambog ana, wala ra nay katunga sa mga atheist na scientists, Mao grabe imong pag idolize anang mendel kay na igno ka anang genetics, ambi nimog unsa na ka complicated nang genetics. hahaha

oi..another ignorant moves. nagkalahi2x ug views on creation ang mga church fathers sa una pang panahon oi..mao walay official stand ang church because neither scripture or tradition shows specific details on creation for absolute conclusion.
sige daw be..since ikaw muy nag assert nga ang Catholic Church's official stand in creation sa una kay ang LITERAL take sa genesis creation accounts. provide ug proof sa imung claim..
and of course since nag claim man ka nga forged ug edited nang wiki to side with the Christian perspective..sige sugdi nag hakyad imung proof...pusta-anay pa ta brade...apil nis lista sa imung lihay tanan..nyahahaha! ug bai palihug ko ug tan.aw sa footnotes sa wiki kung christian sites ba ang sources tanan..unya dakla imung ulo ay pataka lang kag yaw2x..Lol

Common sense na lang na, Pangutan.on tika, kung ikaw usa ka Christianong uto uto na tangaon sa unang panahon, let's say in the 15th century, unya mangutana ko sa imuha kung asa gikan ang tao? Alangan naman mu dagan ka sa "theistic evolution" na wala pa man na diskobrehan ang evolution ni adto, siyempre mu dagan ka anang gensis ninyo, unya ingnon nimo na gi magic sa inyuhang "ginoo" (kuno) ang pag himo niya sa mga tao. ana ka kataw.anan ang relihiyon niinyo sa una, na menos menosan gamay karon kay ni sakay mo sa evolution.

Kadtong lang nang 1950's ni sakay ang vatican sa evolution, kay kataw.anan na kaayo paminawon na gi magic ra tanan sa ilahang ginoo (kuno). Pero maski karon daghan gihapon kaayog tanga na uto utong kristiyano na bugo sama nimo na mu tuo ug "theistic evolution" or the "creation story" mao mao ra na, mahulog gihapon nag magic magic sa inyuhang imaginary na ginoo tanga! hahaha!

hoy! kasabut ka ug unsay missing link? ang missing link nga gipangita kay ang COMMON ancestor sa tao ug unggoy..mao nay missing link.
kanang homo erectus prehas nimu! apil na sa hominid family tree..meaning later stage na na ning butho therefore di na maoy missing link..kasabut ka? of course..wala! sige you may go!

Mura sad kag korek missing link? Wala man gani ka kasabot unsay meaning ana, homo erectus sad ignorante kaayo ka sa mga ing.anang butang, mura kag korek oi, ka bugo nimo. pag research ug imuha diha, unya sabta ug maayo, kapoy ug type unya dili gihapon ka kasabot.

haha! wa kasabut ai..
in scientific terms, when one is labeled as a theory, di na nagpasabut nga tagna2x ra na...Lol so pataka ra kag react..
by theory i mean, incomplete pa ang data for absolute conclusion..
and when i say widely accepted theory, in scientific terms, it is considered as a Fact. mao bitawng wala gi deny sa church ang evolution..

Ni tukar napud imong pagka bugo sa reading comprehension, kanus.a ko ni ingon na tagna tagna ra ang theory? Pag basa og tarong oi. wala tay padulongan anang non-existing reading comprehension nimo. ugok.

unya unsa pa may gipagarpar nimu diha bahin sa evolution? paila lang kang wa katumong sa diskorso..hahaha
so kung mamugos ka nga kompleto na jud ang details regarding evolution..
sige daw be, unsa may common ancestor sa tao ug mga unggoy? ay nalang ug untingkay diha sa google brad..kay di pa na available sa atong panahon karun..kini nga aspeto mao nay nakapa theory niya..(theory in scientific terms dili layman's)

Murag ignorante pa kaayo ka sa evolution, basaha nimog maayo kay murag tangaon pa kaayo ka



To begin with, let's take a step back. Although the evolution of hominid features is sometimes put in the framework of "apes vs. humans," the fact is that humans are apes, just as they are primates and mammals. A glance at the evogram shows why. The other apes — chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon — would not form a natural, monophyletic group (i.e., a group that includes all the descendants of a common ancestor) — if humans were excluded. Humans share many traits with other apes, and those other "apes" (i.e., non-human apes) don't have unique features that set them apart from humans. Humans have some features that are uniquely our own, but so do gorillas, chimps, and the rest. Hominid evolution should not be read as a march to human-ness (even if it often appears that way from narratives of human evolution). Students should be aware that there is not a dichotomy between humans and apes. Humans are a kind of ape.

Virtually all systematists and taxonomists agree that we should only give names to monophyletic groups. However, this evogram shows that this guideline is not always followed. For an example, consider Australopithecus. On the evogram you can see a series of forms, from just after Ardipithecus to just before Homo in the branching order, that are all called Australopithecus. (Even Paranthropus is often considered an australopithecine.) But as these taxa appear on the evogram, "Australopithecus" is not a natural group, because it is not monophyletic: some forms, such as A. africanus, are found to be closer to humans than A. afarensis and others. Beyond afarensis, for example, all other Australopithecus and Homo share "enlarged cheek teeth and jaws," because they have a more recent common ancestor. Eventually, several of these forms will have to have new genus names if we want to name only monophyletic groups. Students should avoid thinking of "australopithecines" as a natural group with uniquely evolved traits that link its members together and set it apart from Homo. Instead they should focus on the pattern of shared traits among these species and the Homo clade, recognizing that each species in this lineage gains more and more features that are shared by Homo.

In popular fiction and movies, the concept of the wild "ape-man" is often that of a tree-living, vine-swinging throwback like Tarzan. However, the pantheon of hominids is much richer than this, as the evogram shows with forms as different as Paranthropus and Ardipithecus shows. For example, imagine going back in time to the common ancestor of humans and chimps (including bonobos). What did that common ancestor look like? In the Origin of Species Darwin noted that the extinct common ancestor of two living forms should not be expected to look like a perfect intermediate between them. Rather, it could look more like one branch or the other branch, or something else entirely.

Did the common ancestor of humans and chimps conform to the ape-man myth and live in the trees, swinging from vines? To answer this, we have to focus not only on anatomy but on behavior, and we have to do it in a phylogenetic context. Apes such as the gibbon and orangutan, which are more distantly related to humans, are largely arboreal (i.e., tree-living). The more closely related apes such as the gorilla and chimps are relatively terrestrial, although they can still climb trees. The feet of the first hominids have a considerable opposition of the big toe to the others but relatively flat feet, as arboreal apes generally do. But other features of their skeleton, such as the position of the foramen magnum underneath the skull, the vertically shortened and laterally flaring hips, and the larger head of the femur, suggest that they were not just mainly terrestrial but habitually bipedal, unlike their knuckle-walking relatives. Most evidence suggests that the hominid lineage retained some of the anatomical features related to arboreal life and quadrupedal gait even after it had evolved a more terrestrial lifestyle and a bipedal gait. There is no fossil record of these behaviors, but the balance of the available evidence supports the hypothesis that the hominid ancestor was terrestrial and bipedal.

Much discussion in human paleontology surrounds the evolution of a bipedal, upright stance. When and why did this occur? One thing to keep in mind is that "bipedal" and "upright" are not equivalent terms. An animal can be bipedal without having a vertical backbone (think T. rex). It seems clear from the fossil record of hominids that habitual bipedality preceded the evolution of a recurved spine and upright stance. Other changes in the gait, such as how the relatively "splayed" gait of chimps evolved into the gait of humans, who put one foot directly in front of the other, involve studying the hip joint, the femur, and the foot. The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to Australopithecus afarensis are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans.

Another extremely interesting feature in hominid evolution is the degree of sexual dimorphism (i.e., physical differences between the sexes) in different species. Sexual dimorphism is linked to features of sociality and mate competition in many sorts of animals. To understand the evolution of this feature in humans, which have relatively low sexual dimorphism, we need to consider the other apes, in which sexual dimorphism tends to be moderate to high (with exceptions). We don't have sufficient evidence about Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus to understand much about *** differences in these species, but we do know that A. afarensis had relatively high sexual dimorphism: the males were considerably larger than the females. The difference seems to have been less in A. africanus, Paranthropus, and most of the Homo lineage. The evolutionary explanation for A. afarensis' dimorphism is not entirely clear. The larger males may have used their size to attract females and/or repel rivals, which would fit with an explanation based on sexual selection. Or the males and females may have been differently sized because they played different roles in their groups, the males hunting and gathering and the females caring for the young. Darwin thought that this differentiation of the sexes may have played a critical role in human evolution, but we simply do not know much about the role of this feature in A. afarensis. Some, all, or none of these functions may have been in play.

We do know that by the time the animals known as Homo evolved, they could make tools, and their hands were well suited for complex manipulations. These features were eventually accompanied by the reduction of the lower face, particularly the jaws and teeth, the recession of the brow, the enlargement of the brain, the evolution of a more erect posture, and the evolution of a limb more adapted for extended walking and running (along with the loss of arboreally oriented features). The evogram shows the hypothesized order of acquisition of these traits. Yet each of the Homo species was unique in its own way, so human evolution should not be seen as a simple linear progression of improvement toward our own present-day form.

The emergence of humans

haha! tawn pud...kung magkamuriching na gani sa istorya..resort dayun to ad hominem..nya bright pa ka ana?...

Gikan raman gyud na sa wikipedia imong mga post, unya ang sources kay sa mga christian websites ra sad, mga uto utong bugo ra pariha nimo ang mag pa uto ana.

hahahahahahaha! ok ra ka diha bai? naa man guro kay sakit bai..kataw.anan man nga patolan ta ka ani but to snap you out from wherever your mind is now..naa koy daghang witnesses tawn oi nga dugay ra ko anang theistic evolution nga panahom..mao bitaw Katoliko ko...Lol pangutan.a si @marius, or si @pakinimo(tag-as kaayo amung istorya didti sa Atheism.Theism nga thread bahin ana), @Jhared(regarding biblical literalism) ug si kinsa pa tong mga atheist nga akong naka discussion sa una bahin ana...hinlabi na sa mga theist nga hagbay rang nag posing2x diri sa thread.ikaw asa man imung proof nga nagsuon2x ko nimu? lista napud ni? hahahaha
there's this thing called life bai, you should get one! hahahaha!

Klaro kaayo oi, basta naa kay first time na madunggan na word sa akoa, gamiton dayon nimo, Pariha adtong history sa roman empire, ignorante kaayo ka adto na topic, wala nagka-dimao imong reply, igo na lang ka ni dagan na murag bayo ug ni ingon og "daghag istorya way igo"

Aw ana ka ka bugo, pati history sa imong sariling relihiyon wa ka kabalo, pagka oplok na lang jud nimo.

[flublu]

ahhhhh mao d.i dugay kayu katubag. hahahaha loading kayung google guhd. kaluoy sab tawn...

[SioDenz]

Grabe maka dala ug Copy and Paste. hehe

Blind Follower jud lagi kay Too ra man dayun bisag walay Gihimung kaugalingong Evaluation sa Theory if Tinuod ba or dili. Basta mabasa lang OK ug SAKTO na...

[R_Forster]

Grabe maka dala ug Copy and Paste. hehe

Blind Follower jud lagi kay Too ra man dayun bisag walay Gihimung kaugalingong Evaluation sa Theory if Tinuod ba or dili. Basta mabasa lang OK ug SAKTO na...

Dugay na ko naghimo sa akoang kaugalingong evaluation and common sense ray kailangan ana, kamo naa moy evaluation anang bibliya ninyo? Kanang magic magic anang bibliya ninyo gi evaluate sad ninyo? Bugong uto utong kristiyanong tanga.

Gi likayan napud nimo ang pangutana sa imuha, bugo ka, tubaga kay gi kataw.an raman nimo ang evolution, ASA DIAY GIKAN ANG MODERN HUMANS? tubaga!

[defender_1611]

Ni gamit ra kog language na ilahang masabtan, pariha adtong nakig-storya kog tarong without insults, ang gi reply aning mga utak habal-habal driver diri kay "Daghag istorya way igo" "lols" "hahahaha" and emoticons, mao unfortunately kailangan mu baba sa ilahang level aron at least naa sad silay masabtan.

Mura ra nag nakig-istorya ka sa mga tambay sa kanto ba, Dili mana sila kasabot ug mga certain words, mao mu gamit sad kag street language aron makasabot sila.

street language di ay ng imong pang insulto? ako ganahan kaayo ko muapil sa inyong discussion ni bay @noy about theory of evolution but pinaagi sa imong gipakita nga attitude diri mao ng back-out lang sa ko unya nalang guro ug malinawon na ug bugnaw ng palibot.

[pakinimo]

@noy: dont ask any proof from R_Forster kay even @slabdans ask him for proof he cant even provide. Basin nag google pa siguro na siya kay wala pa guro niya ma kaykayi ang proof nga atong gipangita from him.

You have absolutely no idea.

[defender_1611]

ako maka pangutana ko....unsa kaha kung actual ni nga discussion noh? maka tubag ba kaha si bay @R_Forster ug mga pangutana.

[R_Forster]

ako maka pangutana ko....unsa kaha kung actual ni nga discussion noh? maka tubag ba kaha si bay @R_Forster ug mga pangutana.

tan.awa avatar nimo, mga uto utong bugo na kristiyanong dali ra mahadlok ang mu tuo ana



LOLS!

Ni apil ka anang kulto nimo tungod kay gi hadlok ka na mu adto kag impyerno, ako ray naluoy nimo hahaha