Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

2) I do not believe nor deny a particular process of evolution unless I want to make one up that benifits.

---

Benefits what?

Quote:

---

3) I am certain we did not emerge from the genetics of apes or monkeys.

---

Your right, we did not. We evolved from them over time.

I hate to break this to you, but your genetics are nearly 95% similar to a monkey's. Even more so, humans are significantly similar to a grapefruit. So do not try to appeal to this, for it is simply irrelevant how genetically similar we are.

Furthermore, you have not refuted any of my earlier claims in my post, which is what I was trying to concentrate on. The point is that evolution cannot explain everything as of yet and it admits to that. Trying to argue otherwise is simply a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Now I have a question for believers in the ape theory. Where is the evidence that apes evolved from humans? When can I have proof of it? A simple question but it is not yet shown how this could be possible.

---

Fossil records.

Here's some proof for you;

Run your hand down to your ass, now move up to the bottom of your spine. Congratulations, you have found your tail-bone where the tail once grew out of. Oh, and let us not forget your appendix which is useless for a humans diet, but entirely crucial for an apes. If you believe these are there for other reasons, I am more than receptive to read why.

Quote:

---

In other words, this subject has not being investigated properly here and no conclusive results show evidence of ape to human mutation despite any accepted consensus on the subject.

---

You are very incorrect here.

Here, have a lesson from Liam Neeson as the narrator:
https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/me...egory_Code=OTH

The evidence is, in fact, so overwhelming that it would take 8 hours to show it entirely to you. I leave it to you to educate yourself as, I have said before, I am not confident that if I took the time myself that you would be receptive to it. That conclusion derived from your insiduous insulting demeanour.

~

Quote:

---

I think you meant apes evolved INTO humans. Anyway. That's easy--ever heard of endogenous retroviruses? Basically, when a retrovirus infects an organism, it copies part of its own genetic material over the host's DNA, altering it. Over hundreds of generations of random mutation, the remnants of the retrovirus still remain, with small, unique errors in their transcription. Humans and chimpanzees share several retrovirus remnants, with identical mutations. The chances of the mutations being identical in chimps and humans while arising in separate incidents is virtually impossible, thus we can conclude that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor--and, by observing the mutations of the retrovirus remnant, we can even estimate the time period. This points at a date about eight million years ago, which correlates well with the fossil record.

---

It is already known that humans didn't come from apes themselves but from something in between of which there is no fosil record! Going from apes to humans is impossible. Like going from a orange to a banana. It's just strange and not realistic.

here we go...Endogenous retroviruses

Quote:

---

Endogenous retroviruses are retroviruses derived from ancient infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV-1) infect somatic cells, but some can also infect germline cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations during host DNA replication. They can also be partially excised from the genome by a process known as recombinational deletion.

---

If endogenous retroviruses are the answer. This brings up twice as many questions! how could humans evolve from a serious of unexplained temporary viruses that the apes carried and then we morphed into humans? A specific range of special infections cannot magically alter apes genetics into humans. Some random lucky mutation doesn't make sense and there is nothing to back it up. The problems with natural selection make this theory complete nonsense. Unique errors DO NOT remain, because of the aquired knockout mutations during host DNA replication. They can also be partially excised from the genome by a process known as recombinational deletion. As stated above. I listed the differences between these gentics in this thread already. There is to many of them. Too much is unknown to conclude your pie in the sky ape theory. Infections are not progressive. Viruses, are not progressive.

If you can tell me how this happened did you know you would be the first person in history to do so? There is no fosil record to support the theory. You are mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darwin

if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

---

This means it's difficult to imagine how it's possible because it's absurd. Frankly everything else stated is a weak explanation aswel.

You can't even spell.

If anyone wants to know how the eye evolved, read Dawkins book "Climbing Mount Improbable", there's a whole chapter on it. If you don't read it, it's your own fault if you don't understand, but don't just go around saying the evolution of the eye is impossible--because it's not.

(Hint: being able to sense light is useful, being able to sense movement is more useful, seeing a blurry image is even more useful, etc. 1% of an eye is better than none, 50% is better than that, etc. Get it? You don't have to evolve the whole thing all at once--each stage is useful. It is not irreducibly complex.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It is already known that humans didn't come from apes themselves but from something in between of which there is no fosil record! Going from apes to humans is impossible. Like going from a orange to a banana. It's just strange and not realistic.

here we go...Endogenous retroviruses



If endogenous retroviruses are the answer. This brings up twice as many questions! how could humans evolve from a serious of unexplained temporary viruses that the apes carried and then we morphed into humans? A specific range of special infections cannot magically alter apes genetics into humans. Some random lucky mutation doesn't make sense and there is nothing to back it up. The problems with natural selection make this theory complete nonsense. Unique errors DO NOT remain, because of the aquired knockout mutations during host DNA replication. They can also be partially excised from the genome by a process known as recombinational deletion. As stated above. I listed the differences between these gentics in this thread already. There is to many of them. Too much is unknown to conclude your pie in the sky ape theory. Infections are not progressive. Viruses, are not progressive.

If you can tell me how this happened did you know you would be the first person in history to do so? There is no fosil record to support the theory. You are mistaken.




This means it's difficult to imagine how it's possible because it's absurd. Frankly everything else stated is a weak explanation aswel.

---

I'm almost convinced an ape authored the above post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Your right, we did not. We evolved from them over time.

---

In this quote you write. "we did not evolve from apes, we evolved from them". Your first sentence tells me we did not evolve from them. The next sentence you claim we did evolve from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I hate to break this to you, but your genetics are nearly 95% similar to a monkey's. Even more so, humans are significantly similar to a grapefruit. So do not try to appeal to this, for it is simply irrelevant how genetically similar we are.

---

95%? I don't know if this is exactly correct. But even so...5% is, a lot when it comes to these things...5% is a lot to explain. Also does a grapefruit being so similar to a human being, have the ability to morph into us through some virus infection perhaps? I highly doubt it.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, you have not refuted any of my earlier claims in my post, which is what I was trying to concentrate on. The point is that evolution cannot explain everything as of yet and it admits to that. Trying to argue otherwise is simply a waste of time.

---

If evolution can't explain this why believe it so much? You over estimate your evidence. you have like 5% evidence and 95% superstition. Like trying to fit a triangle into a square hole. Some of it fits but in the end it doesn't match up completely.

Quote:

---

Fossil records.

---

I have evidence your shoes can talk to you because, fossil records. The next question is obviously....What fossil records are YOU refering towards? They would have to be discovered by you personally. Then you might be front page news.

Quote:

---

Here's some proof for you;

Run your hand down to your ass, now move up to the bottom of your spine. Congratulations, you have found your tail-bone where the tail once grew out of. Oh, and let us not forget your appendix which is useless for a humans diet, but entirely crucial for an apes. If you believe these are there for other reasons, I am more than receptive to read why.

---

If the human body contained evidence of ape heritage I don't think you would be the first to discover it by running your hand down your ass and feeling your tail-bone. This is not proof. That is very watered down thinking. Something a child would conclude. Trees are going past the car when dad drives so the earth must be moving. Tail bone or something that seems similar to something else. Doesn't automatically mean it had to have come from it.

Quote:

---

The evidence is, in fact, so overwhelming that it would take 8 hours to show it entirely to you.

---

Dream on. You can't even make a summary. You present nonsense so far.

Quote:

---

If anyone wants to know how the eye evolved, read Dawkins book "Climbing Mount Improbable"

---

Or you can read "climbing mount fantasy impossible" by Dorkins.

Quote:

---

(Hint: being able to sense light is useful, being able to sense movement is more useful, seeing a blurry image is even more useful, etc. 1% of an eye is better than none, 50% is better than that, etc. Get it? You don't have to evolve the whole thing all at once--each stage is useful. It is not irreducibly complex.)

---

It's useful but how did skin effectively change into it in just the right places in such a short time considering the impossibility of such a change. 50% is better than 1% of an eye? We know that but it doesn't make it a sensible or plausible idea. Saying each stage happened over some time is not good enough. I can say anything happened over time. You've only got the age of the earth. That's not very long to explain it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm almost convinced an ape authored the above post.

---

I'm almost convinced this song is for you.

Back to mindless insults when you lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

If endogenous retroviruses are the answer. This brings up twice as many questions! how could humans evolve from a serious of unexplained temporary viruses that the apes carried and then we morphed into humans? A specific range of special infections cannot magically alter apes genetics into humans. Some random lucky mutation doesn't make sense and there is nothing to back it up.

---

Tsen didn't say retroviruses were the cause of the evolution between apes and humans. :P

He wanted to use it as an excuse. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Back to mindless insults when you lose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Or you can read "climbing mount fantasy impossible" by Dorkins.

---

First of all, how old are you? Second of all, you may think that questioning evolution is something that's never been done before, something which clearly shows you to be of superior intellect and daring.

Well, it's been done before, to death. Evolution is one of science's most successful theories, and it explains mounds and mounds of genetic phenomena. I will give you multiple in-depth examples if you want, but I don't think you will know what the hell I'm talking about anyways. There is also a fine line between questioning something honestly and saying 'is not' in response to everything supplied to you. There are books written about this subject - that's how complex it can be. If you really wanted to learn, you would read them... however, you don't want to learn. You want to be contradictory because it makes you feel original, like you're ahead of the game.

You might as well start questioning gravity, I'll bet no one's ever thought to do that! Now quit being a troll and either try honestly to learn this stuff or leave us alone. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I'm almost convinced this song is for you.

Back to mindless insults when you lose.

---

Back to mindless insults when you lose faith in your opponent's capacity for reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

In this quote you write. "we did not evolve from apes, we evolved from them". Your first sentence tells me we did not evolve from them. The next sentence you claim we did evolve from them.

---

Perhaps if you remotely understood any fundamentals of evolution, you would understand the process of evolution and natural selection.

Quote:

---

95%? I don't know if this is exactly correct. But even so...5% is, a lot when it comes to these things...5% is a lot to explain. Also does a grapefruit being so similar to a human being, have the ability to morph into us through some virus infection perhaps? I highly doubt it.

---

Again, you obviously know nothing about evolution.

Quote:

---

I have evidence your shoes can talk to you because, fossil records. The next question is obviously....What fossil records are YOU refering towards? They would have to be discovered by you personally. Then you might be front page news.

---

The video I linked to you will provide, in great detail, the fossil records.

Quote:

---

If the human body contained evidence of ape heritage I don't think you would be the first to discover it by running your hand down your ass and feeling your tail-bone. This is not proof. That is very watered down thinking. Something a child would conclude. Trees are going past the car when dad drives so the earth must be moving. Tail bone or something that seems similar to something else. Doesn't automatically mean it had to have come from it.

---

Perhaps you can explain why you have a tailbone and appendix then instead of simply attacking and insulting?

Quote:

---

Dream on. You can't even make a summary. You present nonsense so far.

---

You have done nothing so far by be a hypocritical, hostile, intelletcually icompetent, sanctimonious, patronizing, condescending, conjecturing, demanding and yet not giving, completely ignorant, moron.

Please give me reason to think otherwise and give justifications in response rather than a pathetic attempt at ad hominems or tu quoque.

Furthermore, go read a book on evolution. That is, if you have the phrenic capacity to do so.

~

Okay, I'm too lazy to keep track of these threads anymore. Trust me when I say that your arguments are done to death, Mystic.
Now, I never said retrovirus markers CAUSED humans to evolve from apes, only that they are genetic markers showing shared heritage. The split between humans and chimps was caused by increasingly divergent behavior and environment leading to reproductive isolation of the two groups.

And with that, I once again take my leave of these debates. I thought I was ready to jump back in, but I just can't be bothered to deal with the willfully ignorant.

But there is another important point to consider in all of this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ph8kGPXOoUw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Or you can read "climbing mount fantasy impossible" by Dorkins.

---

You don't want to learn. I understand.

But for anybody else who wants to learn about evolution, that and The Blind Watchmaker are really good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsen

once again take my leave of these debates. I thought I was ready to jump back in, but I just can't be bothered to deal with the willfully ignorant.

---

I second that.

Edit:

You know I thought about it and if I went around insulting people and not listening to them ( essentially projecting my ignorance upon them) until they gave up, I would also feel like a very smart person.

Example:
"I believe evolution is true. *Provides X argument*"
"You're a dumbass"
"Can you criticise my argument?"
"It's crap"
"How?"
"Cause an idiot wrote it"
"Why are they an idiot?"
"Shut up"
"What?"
"What? Why are you such a baby?"
"I give up..."
"I knew it! I am teh weiner!"

Also, this is a very good DVD set on evolution (just.. 8 hours long)
https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/me...egory_Code=OTH

~

Btw O'nus. Wise choice of the medical symbol. But I am yet to figure out the purpose of it from you. You probally don't even realize the full meaning or history of the symbol you just put it there because it looks good or you felt like it because unconsiously you know it's effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsen

The split between humans and chimps was caused by increasingly divergent behavior and environment leading to reproductive isolation of the two groups.

---

And you know this because? You are guessing or you just would like to think that is what happened? You seem to not realize the lack of fossil records to confirm this. Any educated person atleast admits they don't have the fossil records and a lack of evidence for the theory. Evidence to the contrary, if they are educated enough actually they start thinking it makes more sense that we didn't evovle from apes at all. Until they are finally convinced from their own research. Self assured as you are about the evidence, it makes you look dumb because there is litte. What you can't do is show me the conclusive proof.

You probably don't realize the insignificance of your existence as it applies to anyone who knows what they're talking about (i.e. that they know that you don't know what you're talking about), or even know the difference between possessive pronouns and contractions for that matter.

So, we are all in the same boat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywo7bAp0h8k

Stop typing. Stop posting. Stop breathing.

Stop doing silly equations, Nasa is not impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

And you know this because? You are guessing or you just would like to think that is what happened? You seem to not realize the lack of fossil records to confirm this. Any educated person atleast admits they don't have the fossil records and a lack of evidence for the theory.

---

Or alternatively simply links you to them:
Like this, Or this, Or this

Or even shows you images of them:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/image...anus_skull.gifhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/image..._left_side.gif

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd.../hominids2.jpg
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Trust me, these are put together by very educated people.

You may remove your foot now.

I don't see the resemblances.

I get how an E can evolve into an F, but how in the heck would an F evolve into a G?! They're way different. Stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

I get how an E can evolve into an F, but how in the heck would an F evolve into a G?! They're way different. Stupid.

---

If you're trying to figure it out only by looking at a small jpg, then stupid might be just the right word.

Sorry but "I don't see how," doesn't cut it here. If you really want to "see how," then read up at some of the links I provided.

Yeah, right. It completely skips over G flat. Just another example of the holes in the evolution scale.

So which one of those skulls gave birth to that last skull? I don't see how scientists could know that if they weren't there to watch it the day it happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So which one of those skulls gave birth to that last skull?

---

As far as I know, skulls don't give birth at all. But if you're talking about M vs. N they are both Homo Sapiens, just separated by 30,000 years. I had no idea anyone disputed the fact that Homo Sapiens came from Homo Sapiens. Your desperate search for a flaw only exposes your own.

Quote:

---

I don't see how scientists could know that if they weren't there to watch it the day it happened.

---

Again, "I don't see how" is not a very convincing argument. Learn a little about anthropology and it'll become clear to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Btw O'nus. Wise choice of the medical symbol. But I am yet to figure out the purpose of it from you. You probally don't even realize the full meaning or history of the symbol you just put it there because it looks good or you felt like it because unconsiously you know it's effect.

---

Nice try, dumbass.

Caduceus or the staff of Aesculapius (the God of medicine, or revered as one depending on where you come from).

There are two version, this one and the one without the wings. The one without the wings is the staff of Aesculapius and the one with wings is the staff of Mercury (typically). However, many other people think it could be a merchant symbol or the sign of buddha underneath (I can't remember the name of the tree). The snakes representing a human travel, and the wings representing transcendence.

Other people think it can represent the cross of Jesus with the same interpretation as above.

The staff of aseculapius came from how he used to get a snake/worm infection out of the wounded with sticks by twining them out of wounds. Furthermore, there was a tale that he had seduced a snake that would bite people and actually cure them and that is why he carries it around with him all the time.

Aesculapius was known for his Aesculapaeons where he would give dream interpretations and baths.

The staff of mercury (the one in my avatar) is not on ambulances because it represents the travel of death and people thought it would be ironic if people were taken off by a vehicle that represented "death".

But hey, nice way to completely dodge every single thing. You are getting completely desparate now.

Next you'll just accuse me of wikipedia'ing this whole thing up or some other pathetic attempt at an insult to make up for your incompetent capacity to conjur up a substantial and intellectual point. Or, you can incorporate something I say and rebute it sarcastically (ie. "incoporate scmorporate, o'nus!").

You are the reason condoms were made.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

As far as I know, skulls don't give birth at all. But if you're talking about M vs. N they are both Homo Sapiens, just separated by 30,000 years. I had no idea anyone disputed the fact that Homo Sapiens came from Homo Sapiens. Your desperate search for a flaw only exposes your own.

Again, "I don't see how" is not a very convincing argument. Learn a little about anthropology and it'll become clear to you.

---

That's right. Skulls don't give birth to other skulls. Homo sapiens don't give birth to homo sapiens either. Only storks give birth to humans. So there goes the theory of evolution.

heh, skysaw, I think you were baited in to both mark and univeral mind's sarcasm. they both do support evolution, so just smile and laugh :D

on a serious note, I realize there is a great degree of variation between animals of the same species, so when we only have bones, where do we draw the line between variation and an actual new species? Teeth? Im mean, only in terms of species that are very similar, not between a dog and a cat:P Im not being sarcastic, just wondering because I havnt heard much on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

on a serious note, I realize there is a great degree of variation between animals of the same species, so when we only have bones, where do we draw the line between variation and an actual new species? Teeth? Im mean, only in terms of species that are very similar, not between a dog and a cat:P Im not being sarcastic, just wondering because I havnt heard much on this.

---

The lines between species is arbitrary even with living animals. The common definition is that populations that normally breed together in the wild are considered a species, but this can cause trouble when an type of animal exists over a large range and there is a spectrum which varies quite a bit on the ends, such as the zebra, and many others.

So to answer your question, it's probably pretty arbitrary with fossils too, especially since you have change over time and not just area.

I'm pretty sure that two different species cannot mate to produce fertile offspring. That would serve as one defintion.

skysaw I don't know if you understand this with that dinosaur science internet summary of what you call sufficient evidence. But showing some pictures of different skulls doesn't give us a complete picture of how the skulls were once the human race and how they changed. There is many stupid opinions from many silly people on the origins of those skulls and their implications. A closer look will tell you that, there is far more questions than you would like to admit. You just want everything on a platter and whenever anyone presents something that suits you. You will take it from the silver platter provided because your too lazy to go and use your own mind. Still, there is no clear answers as to how such a thing could have progressed naturally. Those skulls are evidence against the theory not for it! You can make up a story as to how you want it to be. You can line the skulls up and say, we evolved from this skull to that skull. But you need to have a bit more understanding before you can jump to conclusions about how skulls changed shape in what fashion from what period. Anyone can look up a bunch of known skulls that someone else sorted out on a platter for you.

moonbeam- This may be true, but in so aspects we need to show species producing new offspring to show evolution as an explination for the diversity...so I think being able to show these skeletons as seperate species should be essential.

xei- yeah, thats how I learned it for living things...but it is kind of hard to tell that from skeletons.

thanks both of you for replies

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd.../hominids2.jpg

It's been a long while. So monkeys and apes should be turning into humans. We should be able to document a change. But they seem to have the same shape skull all the time with no change.....So how did these skulls magically start changing and not only these skulls, where the hell did they come from and why did they change, and where is the rest of the bones....I don't see this insane transformation happening in any other living thing on the earth. This is just cherry picking different extinct hominids and putting them together hoping it will make sense. It's funny but it's not science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm pretty sure that two different species cannot mate to produce fertile offspring. That would serve as one defintion.

---

No, that is not always the case. Sometimes the offspring are infertile; sometimes they are fertile, such as coyotes and wolves, as one example. In the wild, occasionally individuals of closely related species hybridize (mule deer and white tails; closely related bird species), but the offspring are usually less fit and are not as successful as the pure-breds, which tends to keep the species seperate, but not always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

moonbeam- This may be true, but in so aspects we need to show species producing new offspring to show evolution as an explination for the diversity...so I think being able to show these skeletons as seperate species should be essential.

---

I don't get what you are saying. It's easy to show skeletons from species that aren't closely related to be different species. But just like with living animals, it may get harder if the skeletons are more similar, especially over time, as they evolve. I don't see the problem, just because the definition of "species" is a human description, and somewhat arbitrary.

Quote:

---

But just like with living animals, it may get harder if the skeletons are more similar, especially over time, as they evolve. I don't see the problem

---

Skeletons don't evolve and change into different shapes without a very good reason [artifical interference]. That is the main problem you have to solve. That is what every living thing on earth that you can currently observe will show you. That fish, remain fish. Dogs remain dogs. Sharks and whales. Stay as sharks and whales. Birds remain birds. Dogs don't start building airplanes and using cars because they evolved. Neither will cats or sheep. Neither will apples or oranges. Or little sea horses from the ocean.

So just because we have a common ancestor, apes should take the same evolutionary path as us?

Firstly apes are not our ancestor's. Second, that's exactly why they still exist and are not living as human. Why would they still be present the same as they always were? It's suppose to be common logic. Apes are apes. Just because they also have a face doesn't mean you were once them. How dull are you to suggest everyone was apes and look at us now....wow, what happened. I Don't think so. We are completely different.

Ohhhh, I get it. Just because some things are kinda tough to explain using science right now... that must imply that God exists! I feel sorry for those of you who cannot reason so logically.





:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't get what you are saying. It's easy to show skeletons from species that aren't closely related to be different species. But just like with living animals, it may get harder if the skeletons are more similar, especially over time, as they evolve. I don't see the problem, just because the definition of "species" is a human description, and somewhat arbitrary.

---

mm, yeah, Im not always great at getting my point across. I think this is best fit in a question. Where do we start saying, in skeletons seeing as they are our main proof of evolution "ah that is evolution at work" or "ah that is just natural variation within the species"?

I know that variation is part of evolution, but lets say we have a smaller Labrador that is not shaped very similar to a bigger Labrador. We know these are the same because we can look at them and test DNA and such things, but thousands of years from now, scientists pick up the bones and think these were different dogs produced from a common ancestor? I think that is plausible if the bones are too old to test DNA and things. How do we make sure those kinds of things dont happen so that people who criticize evolution cant point this out as a flaw with the fossil record?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd.../hominids2.jpg

It's been a long while. So monkeys and apes should be turning into humans. We should be able to document a change. But they seem to have the same shape skull all the time with no change.....So how did these skulls magically start changing and not only these skulls, where the hell did they come from and why did they change, and where is the rest of the bones....I don't see this insane transformation happening in any other living thing on the earth. This is just cherry picking different extinct hominids and putting them together hoping it will make sense. It's funny but it's not science.

---

Those neanderthall evolutionary scientists were not taking notes like they should have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Firstly apes are not our ancestor's. Second, that's exactly why they still exist and are not living as human. Why would they still be present the same as they always were? It's suppose to be common logic. Apes are apes. Just because they also have a face doesn't mean you were once them. How dull are you to suggest everyone was apes and look at us now....wow, what happened. I Don't think so. We are completely different.

---

Okay, humans did NOT evolve from chimpanzees. We did NOT evolve from gorillas. We evolved from apes, but those apes were NOT the apes of today. All apes evolved, but that doesn't mean they all became humans. Evolution is adaptation to suit the environment--we developed intelligence to react to an environment, but that isn't the only successful trait. We are no more "evolved" than a chimp--just different. The only measure of success in evolution is survival and reproduction. And chimps are still alive, and still makin' babies, so they are just as "evolved" as you are. They may not be as intelligent, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

In fact, overall, you have NO idea what evolution is, do you? Like I said earlier: WILLFULLY IGNORANT. You do not know what evolution is, and do not care to find out. And thus this is YOUR problem, not ours.

Mystic, I challenge you to sum up the theory of evolution in two paragraphs or more without being a smartass. I bet you don't know enough about it to do that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ohhhh, I get it. Just because some things are kinda tough to explain using science right now... that must imply that God exists! I feel sorry for those of you who cannot reason so logically.





:P

---

The funny thing is Mystic7 has claimed himself that he's not even religious, so I ask, what is his theory of origins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ohhhh, I get it. Just because some things are kinda tough to explain using science right now... that must imply that God exists! I feel sorry for those of you who cannot reason so logically.





:P

---

I think M7 is going more for alien interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I think M7 is going more for alien interference.

---

They forgot to put the alien skull in Skysaw's picture.

http://images.elfwood.com/art/g/r/gr...lien_skull.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They forgot to put the alien skull in Skysaw's picture.

http://images.elfwood.com/art/g/r/gr...lien_skull.jpg

---

That one's largely regarded as a fake. A real Meddler skull would have eleven occiputs. Of course, it would only raise the question of how they acquired so many "perfect" quadri-dimensional eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That one's largely regarded as a fake. A real Meddler skull would have eleven occiputs. Of course, it would only raise the question of how they acquired so many "perfect" quadri-dimensional eyes.

---

Gawd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

skysaw I don't know if you understand this with that dinosaur science internet summary of what you call sufficient evidence. But showing some pictures of different skulls doesn't give us a complete picture of how the skulls were once the human race and how they changed.

---

Which is why I posted links that discusses that very subject. I understand the pictures are hypnotic and pretty, and probably caused you to miss those links, but you still have an opportunity to go back and click on them if you wish.

You: "Any educated person atleast admits they don't have the fossil records..."

Me: "Here are some fossil records..."

You: "Those don't count. Blah, blah, blah..."

Nice defense.

Quote:

---

There is [sic] many stupid opinions from many silly people on the origins of those skulls and their implications.

---

Great! Then let's hear yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Skeletons don't evolve and change into different shapes without a very good reason [artifical interference].

---

This is a misleading implication and only demonstrates your ignorance of natural selection and evolution. Please review the nomeclature before jumping into something you do not know.

Quote:

---

That is the main problem you have to solve. That is what every living thing on earth that you can currently observe will show you. That fish, remain fish. Dogs remain dogs. Sharks and whales. Stay as sharks and whales. Birds remain birds.

---

I think that you will find evolution is fully compatible with what you are saying here. This, yet again, only reinforces your ignorance to evolution. Natural selection and evolution is not spontaneous or completely replaces previous ancestors. It is a residual and invariable process functioning on a stochastic system. Please review the material.

Quote:

---

Dogs don't start building airplanes and using cars because they evolved. Neither will cats or sheep. Neither will apples or oranges. Or little sea horses from the ocean.

---

That is exactly correct. You will find that evolution fully supports this. Domesticated animals have no evolutionary need to develop or build this things. They are fully fit and capable of living without these things. However, humans cannot. Without humans resourcefulness, the human race would quickly die.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, that is not always the case. Sometimes the offspring are infertile; sometimes they are fertile, such as coyotes and wolves, as one example. In the wild, occasionally individuals of closely related species hybridize (mule deer and white tails; closely related bird species), but the offspring are usually less fit and are not as successful as the pure-breds, which tends to keep the species seperate, but not always.

---

I think there are probably several definitions for species. I definitely learned in GCSE that two different species cannot produce fertile offspring, and according to Wikipedia, 'a species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring'.

Taxonomy is a really vague discipline anyway.

I find it amusing when people say that evolution is just a theory as if that disregards it. I mean after all gravity is a theory and so is the Earth circling the Sun, but people dont disregard them. There is so much evidence that corroborates the theories they might as well be facts and the same goes for evolution.

I think Science still calls them theories because there is still more to be learned thats all.

why would Haeckel fake embryo drawings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ohhhh, I get it. Just because some things are kinda tough to explain using science right now... that must imply that God exists! I feel sorry for those of you who cannot reason so logically.

---

Talk about an axe to grind. I never mentioned god in this discussion, I feel sorry for your logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Talk about an axe to grind. I never mentioned god in this discussion, I feel sorry for your logic.

---

You + dis.. cu.. ssion?

Does.Not.Compile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

mm, yeah, Im not always great at getting my point across. I think this is best fit in a question. Where do we start saying, in skeletons seeing as they are our main proof of evolution "ah that is evolution at work" or "ah that is just natural variation within the species"?

---

Oh, I see what you are saying. As we go thru time, there is gradual variation in the skeletal morphology, but how do we know if and when that variation is enough to call it a new species?

I think usually there is the opposite problem--because good and complete fossils are usually rare, large jumps in morphology are more common than a collection of skeletons that represent a smooth spectrum of change over time. This is the favorite false problem of the creationsists--the supposed lack of the "missing links", which is just due to gaps in the fossil record. You are really talking about the opposite problem.

I guess if we could find enough skeletons thru time to follow the generations, it might be hard to know where to draw the line and say, "OK, right here is where it becomes a new species". But I don't thinke that the skeletal record is that complete in most cases for it to be a problem. It is similar to the problem we have now sometimes with the variation of a species across a range. It's not really a "problem", other than that people like to classify things, and it's hard sometimes. I don't know much about plants, but I know that they are even harder to classify, because of hybridization, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I know that variation is part of evolution, but lets say we have a smaller Labrador that is not shaped very similar to a bigger Labrador. We know these are the same because we can look at them and test DNA and such things, but thousands of years from now, scientists pick up the bones and think these were different dogs produced from a common ancestor? I think that is plausible if the bones are too old to test DNA and things. How do we make sure those kinds of things dont happen so that people who criticize evolution cant point this out as a flaw with the fossil record?

---

There are other ways to date fossils; if they are all in one area--the layer of rock that they are found in can tell at least their relative age, if not their exact age, for example. Paleontologists have different ways of dating rocks and the fossils found with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I think there are probably several definitions for species. I definitely learned in GCSE that two different species cannot produce fertile offspring, and according to Wikipedia, 'a species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring'.

Taxonomy is a really vague discipline anyway.

---

It is more complicated than a single sentence. For that reason, those commonly used simple definitions don't always work.

I think everyone is confused about my beliefs and that is understandable. But what I am finding more difficult to tolerate is the speed at which O'nus and others want to define and pin down my exact understanding of this concept of evolution, and then replying in a teaching fashion as if I was on the level of. "oh I didn't know that, thanks for adding that one". No that is not what I'm thinking when I read your response. It's more along the lines of "interesting, get yourself together you misunderstand completely"

Anything should be possible. But, I do not have enough faith that we can magically change into humans from the species avaliable. I admit that may be my fault....I still respect other peoples faith that it is possible.
I only lack faith in the story because I've looked into it. And for me those skulls are not sufficient fossil evidence at all to convince me of anything.

And no, I am not hell bent on alien intevention either. But something must have happened. Impossible magic is difficult to believe there has to be some way to do it. Atleast I'm not blindly believing in something i can't yet understand and then bagging people who use the word god in their vocabulary and belief system.

Now either you believe science failed or humans are not smart enough all these years to figure it out. No, science hasn't failed. Science is only as good as the person using it. So certain people failed and the rest are hiding or covering it up. Now if you can't prove everything with science then you fail. So get used to the fact you don't know everything that means your back to square one and your no better than anyone else who has an equally magical theory you find silly. Get off your blind science lemming throne of sesame street logic. Stop looking down on people and admit your no better than religious morons that go along with what a book says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I think everyone is confused about my beliefs and that is understandable. But what I am finding more difficult to tolerate is the speed at which O'nus and others want to define and pin down my exact understanding of this concept of evolution, and then replying in a teaching fashion as if I was on the level of. "oh I didn't know that, thanks for adding that one". No that is not what I'm thinking when I read your response. It's more along the lines of "interesting, get yourself together you misunderstand completely"

---

I apologise if I have been patronizing. Edit: I am asking for your beliefs because you are not offering any alternatives; you are just pontificating blind scrutiny.

You must understand that many people get this very notion from you, right? You have preached scrutiny but provided little (if any) support. What reason does anyone have to believe what you say when it is analgous to saying "you're wrong" and that is it?

Quote:

---

Anything should be possible. But, I do not have enough faith that we can magically change into humans from the species avaliable. I admit that may be my fault....I still respect other peoples faith that it is possible.
I only lack faith in the story because I've looked into it. And for me those skulls are not sufficient fossil evidence at all to convince me of anything.

And no, I am not hell bent on alien intevention either. But something must have happened. Impossible magic is difficult to believe there has to be some way to do it. Atleast I'm not blindly believing in something i can't yet understand and then bagging people who use the word god in their vocabulary and belief system.

Now either you believe science failed or humans are not smart enough all these years to figure it out. No, science hasn't failed. Science is only as good as the person using it. So certain people failed and the rest are hiding or covering it up. Now if you can't prove everything with science then you fail. So get used to the fact you don't know everything that means your back to square one and your no better than anyone else who has an equally magical theory you find silly. Get off your blind science lemming throne of sesame street logic. Stop looking down on people and admit your no better than religious morons that go along with what a book says.

---

So, you are saying:
- evolution is wrong because of the scientists doing the work
- but science is right
- since science can't prove everything, it is wrong
- religious people are morons

So, now that we have a few contradictions, what are you saying that we ought to believe? You have yet again dodged asserting your beliefs or any support.

Any person can stand on top of a mountain and cast judgment down on people. It takes an intellectual to offer support and reason. (And vague dodgy responses are not support; they are vague and dodgy).

Which do you fall into?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Skeletons don't evolve and change into different shapes without a very good reason [artifical interference]. That is the main problem you have to solve. That is what every living thing on earth that you can currently observe will show you. That fish, remain fish. Dogs remain dogs. Sharks and whales. Stay as sharks and whales. Birds remain birds. Dogs don't start building airplanes and using cars because they evolved. Neither will cats or sheep. Neither will apples or oranges. Or little sea horses from the ocean.

---

It's clear now that you really understand natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Mystic, I challenge you to sum up the theory of evolution in two paragraphs or more without being a smartass. I bet you don't know enough about it to do that. ;)

---

Hello?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

why would Haeckel fake embryo drawings

---

Haeckel didn't fake them. The issue was that he supposedly exaggerated traits to increase similarities. Further research and modern technology shows that he was almost entirely correct. Humans DO have pharyngial gill slits in the womb. Haeckel's conjecture as to why they were there may have been wrong, but undeniably they DO exist. Further, human, fish, chicken and many, many other species' embryos are remarkably similar in early stages of development, not diverging until several stages into development.

Also, the most popular image attributed to Haeckel was actually drawn by Romanes. Haeckel had several hundred embryo drawings, and of them, only eight could be considered "fake". Haeckel explained these images: "[For embryos] in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge."

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

Quote:

---

What sets us apart from apes? At latest count, about four percent of our DNA.

Scientists announced Wednesday that they had completed analysis of the genome of a chimpanzee, humanity’s closest genetic relative, and found that the gap between humans and chimps is about 10 times smaller than the one between rats and mice.

---

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N35/chimpgene.html

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Keep in mind also that we are not descendents of monkeys and apes, we all evolved from the same original species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

I always feel like...somebody's watching me! :parapet:

He's giving L's eulogy -> :pope:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

stuff about pig's hearths :P

---

What, seriously? :o You can transplant a pig heart into a human successfully?? Is that true? *is too lazy to research this herself* In that case, why isn't everybody who's waiting for a heart just get a pig's one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them.

---

We are more closely related to apes than to monkeys, but we are extremely closely related to both. (Monkeys have tails. Apes do not.) The genetic overlap between humans and chimpanzees is 99%. What a coincidence. I hope O'nus can give more details on human/ape genetic overlap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

What, seriously? :o You can transplant a pig heart into a human successfully?? Is that true? *is too lazy to research this herself* In that case, why isn't everybody who's waiting for a heart just get a pig's one?

---

Not true, not yet anyways. Patients die within a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are wrong is so many ways that it's not even worth correcting. You really shouldn't try to explain things of which you have no knowledge whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

---

What..? Where does this keep coming from? I am not upset about anything, especially monkeys being a distant relative.

Quote:

---

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

Pardon?

Time to let the evidence speak for itself.

Quote:

---

Of the macaque's nearly 3 billion DNA base pairs, 93.5 per cent are identical to those in the human genome. This is not unexpected for a species whose lineage diverged from our own about 25 million years ago. The human and chimp genomes, which diverged just 6 million years ago, are about 98 per cent identical.

---

NewScientist - April 2007
http://www.newscientist.com/article....dId=life_rss20

Quote:

---

Analysis of Rhesus Monkey Genome Uncovers Genetic Differences With Humans, Chimps
DNA Comparison Provides New Clues to Primate Biology
An international consortium of researchers has published the genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey and aligned it with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Published April 13 in a special section of the journal Science, the analysis reveals that the three primate species share about 93 percent of their DNA, yet have some significant differences among their genes.

---

National Institutes of Health - April 2007
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2007/nhgri-12.htm

Human vs Chimpanzee Genome Comparison
http://www.wired.com/news/images/ful...himp_dna_f.jpg

Quote:

---

Old World monkeys (OWMs) represent one of the most closely related primate groups to humans....Similar to the human and chimpanzee genomes, roughly 50% of the rhesus macaque genome consists of various repetitive sequences ....Similar to the human genome, the rhesus macaque genome contains over half a million recognizable copies of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) and their nonautonomous derivatives....

---

Science Magazine - April 2007
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT

Quote:

---

Fig. 1. Phylogenetic tree of retroviruses based on full-length Pol proteins. Common infectious retroviruses and endogenous retroviruses, present in fish, birds, mammals (nonprimate), and primates, were included in the analysis. Color identifications for each group are shown in the upper right corner. Asterisks and circles show deep-rooted branches with >95 and >75% bootstrap values, respectively. The ERVs identified in this study that invaded the OWM genome horizontally (i.e., through external germline infection) are indicated with red letters. For all ERVs shown in blue letters, the original insertion occurred in the common ancestor of humans and rhesus macaques (i.e., vertically) and is present in both genomes. All ERVs indicated with blue letters also generated new insertions in the OWM lineage. The scale bar indicates 10% divergence in the amino acid sequence.

---

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...16_238_F1.jpeg

Science Magazine - April 2007
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../5822/238/FIG1

I hope this has been enlightening.

~

Thanks, O'nus. Very informative.

I saw a documentary about the social order of macaques on the Discovery Channel about ten years ago, and it was one of the most fascinating things I have ever seen. Their social order is so much like ours. It was like I was watching a documentary about human behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Thanks, O'nus. Very informative.

---

Thanks, I hope you mean that sincerely, lol.. Took me a little bit to find it from credible sources that are public.

I think that post can also be shown to demonstrate how we evolved, over time, from monkeys. Not literally evolved like Mystic should imply (mighty morphin power ranger style) but more gradual.

~

Here's something interesting, both about human ancestry and the interbreeding of species:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...d_after_split/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Here's something interesting, both about human ancestry and the interbreeding of species:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...d_after_split/

---

That article is hawt.

Creationists: Polizzly? God would never think of that.

Say something Mystic7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

So, you are saying:
- evolution is wrong because of the scientists doing the work
- but science is right
- since science can't prove everything, it is wrong
- religious people are morons

---

I love how you capture little bits of writing and re-make statements to try to put together like a puzzle your model of why I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything, utilizing what you consider my contradictory belief system, which is only as good as the belief system of the person interpreting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

So, now that we have a few contradictions, what are you saying that we ought to believe?

---

Why would you require me to tell you what to believe?

Quote:

---

You have yet again dodged asserting your beliefs or any support.

---

Your interpretation is what dodged it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Any person can stand on top of a mountain and cast judgment down on people.

---

It's madness isn't it. You are doing it right now. Stop fighting what you don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Say something Mystic7.

---

Your the king of dreamviews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It's madness isn't it. You are doing it right now. Stop fighting what you don't understand.

---

And what of Polizzly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It's madness isn't it. You are doing it right now. Stop fighting what you don't understand.

---

Mystic, if you are trying to make a point, it's not wise to say that.

It's very ignorant for you to say, "Stop fighting what you don't understand."

May I suggest, if you think he doesn't understand, tell him. Why don't you fully answer his questions? :roll: You're defending your theory very poorly.

I hope you understand what I mean.

See O'nus. Everyone does it. Even Polizzly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything.

---

:chuckle:

Well done moonbeam you created your own reality and it's true because we can see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Well done moonbeam you created your own reality and it's true because we can see it.

---

You have left us with no choice but to ridicule you.

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys
:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xox

Why don't you fully answer his questions? :roll: You're defending your theory very poorly.

---

I have been trying for years to come up with a strong single shotgun blast comment to make when people relentlessly dodge my questions in debates. You just gave me one. I am going to use that every time I come across a dodgeball player in a debate. It gets right to the point. The one I have used for years has been, "You would be answering that question if you had a good answer." I think yours makes a more important point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneria

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys
:D:D:D

---

And I think those who refuse to inform themselves of a scientifically validated fact are indistinguishable monkeys. Oh, hahaha! Look how witty that was!

Seriously, add something meaningful, or don't bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneria

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys
:D:D:D

---

I have a challenge for you. Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner. Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can. Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution. I am very curious to read what you think it says. Something tells me that you would have no Earthly idea what to write or else would say things that are just flat out false. Let's see what you can do with it.

After you do that, tell us specifically where your disagreements with it are. I bet you can't do that either. Saying that people deserve punishment for believing in evolution and that the punishment should be that their ancestors are monkeys does not qualify as a debate point.

Evolution is simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Evolution is simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

---

That is one of my favorite South Park episodes. Mr. Garrison's understanding of the theory of evolution is really not that different from what most creationists think it says. I bet Mystic and Oneira think what Mr. Garrison said is not that far from what the theory actually does say. If they ever have the nerve to tell us what they think the theory says, I bet they sound a lot like Garrison.

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

---

The existence of atoms is a theory. The existence of black holes is a theory. The explanation for continental drift is a theory. The explanation for why volcanoes erupt is a theory. The idea that the position of the moon affects the tides is a theory. "Theory" is not synonymous with "opinion somebody pulled out of his ass". It takes a great deal of evidence for something to become a well documented scientific theory.

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have a challenge for you. Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner. Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can. Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution. I am very curious to read what you think it says.

---

To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.

Quote:

---

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

---

The laws of physics are ultimately theories at the end of the day. Somehow I don't imagine you'll stop getting on planes because our understanding of the physics that keeps them airborne is 'just a theory'

And what things can evolution not explain? That's a very bold claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

---

We've come full circle in this thread. Evolution, which is genetic change over time, is a fact, and the overwhelmingly agreed upon theory used to explain it is natural selection.

There is nothing within ourselves that we have identified that evolution cannot explain.

Natural selection is not evolution. It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species. The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.

Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life. Atoms are the building blocks of DNA. We are carbon based life forms. Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

---

In a way you are correct, evolution is a theory but then so is gravity and the earth orbiting the sun and plate tectonics.....I could go on and on but the point is this:

Just because something is stated as a theory does not make it any less true. There are huge amounts of evidence supporting these theories. I think they are still called "Theory" for a few reasons 1) there is more to learn and 2) it is hard to reproduce in a lab due to limitations but the models and understanding of these concepts fit very well to the evidence found in nature.

Stating things as a theory is a very poor attack on a idea and I would suggest providing evidence against it if that is what you intend to do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Natural selection is not evolution. It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species. The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.

---

Well it is a good point you make but natural selection is one of the core principles behind evolution. As far as I know (and I may be wrong here I am not a biologist or anything) changes in species occur when they become isolated from the remainder of the species due to geographical environments or constraints and continue to change until the 2 species become genetically incompatible. But like I say im no expert lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life. Atoms are the building blocks of DNA. We are carbon based life forms. Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?

---

In a way that is true saying as we are the remnant of "star dust".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Natural selection is not evolution. It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species. The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.

---

Evolution is genetic change over time. Natural selection determines which animals live and reproduce. This is the way that genes either multiply or die out. "Species" is a vague definition created by humans for convenience in classifying animals. There is nothing magic about "speciation". When isolated groups of animals diverge enough genetically that they can no longer reproduce, we can use that as a definition of species. Very simple, nothing that can't be explained there. Missing links are only gaps in the fossil record, which is incomplete for obvious reasons. Lots of "links" that seemed to be "missing" are found all the time; for example, the gaps in the line between dinosaurs and birds have been massively filled in--there are many other species in between now, not just archaeopteryx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life. Atoms are the building blocks of DNA. We are carbon based life forms. Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?

---

Umm, no...I'm pretty sure the "coal theory" of the origin of life is pretty original with you. ;) As is the related "diamond theory". :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark

In a way that is true saying as we are the remnant of "star dust".

---

That's a cool way of looking at that...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.

---

Of course I can do that. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied Eastern religion a great deal. Search my posts in the R/S forum and you will see that I don't make ignorant comments about religious teachings. I try to make sure I know what I am talking about when I debate people. What does it have to do with whether Oneira and Mystic understand the subject of this thread? I don't think Oneira and Mystic are able to give a substantially detailed explanation of what the theory of evolution says, yet they make insulting comments toward those who believe in it. What does my ability to say what a religious belief system involves have to do with whether or not they know what they are talking about?

A litle more than six thousand years ago, God existed without the world. He decided to create the world. He did so in six days and then rested on the seventh. In the world he created, he created a man named Adam by blowing clay. Soon afterwards, a woman named Eve came into existence from one of Adam's ribs. They were the first man and woman. Later, a fallen angel named Satan showed up in Adam and Eve's Garden of Eden and tempted Adam to eat a fruit from the tree of knowledge, something God said specifically not to do. Adam ate the fruit any way. As a result, Adam and Eve were no longer naked and sin existed in the world. It has been with humans ever since. However, the sin that resulted from eating the fruit is necessary for the existence of free will. Because of free will and sin, God later spoke to a prophet named Moses. God was in the form of a burning bush. He instructed Moses on his ten big rules for humans to follow in using their free will in order to avoid sin. For a long time, God's rule was that people who use their free will to violate those laws or his other ones do not get into Heaven, and the only other place to go after death is Satan's Hell, a terrible place most commonly believed by Christians to be a place of eternal torture by burning in a fire.

After 4,000 years of Earth's existence, God decided to change the rules on getting into Heaven. He wanted to give people a chance to get into Heaven even if they sin, so he came to Earth in the form of his son and had himself tortured to "death" and resurrected so that people could believe that story and accept God in the form of his son Jesus as their savior from the punishment for sin. That allowed him to change his rule. Jesus is going to come back to Earth in the future and round up those who are allowed to go to Heaven. Many other things happen soon after. The world will end, and Satan and the people not allowed into Heaven will spend eternity in a lake of fire while those in Heaven experience bliss for eternity.

There you go. In case you were asking for their perspective on why only creationism makes sense, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing and that if God did not exist, something would have had to have come from nothing. They also believe that the universe is so fascinating, complicated, complex, and impressive that only something with intelligence could have created it. In case you were asking what the creationist perspective is on why evolution does not make sense, I can only tell you the few arguments I have heard for it. I have never heard one give a solid counterargument to the theory of evolution because every time I hear them try, they give false explanations of what the theory of evolution says. That is why I challenged Mystic and Oneiroa to tell me what it says, and I have a feeling they are not going to do that. Here are some of the arguments I have heard creationists make against evolution.

- Monkeys do not give birth to humans now, so why should we believe that they did at one time? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If humans came from gorillas, then why don't we have hispanic gorillas, Chinese gorillas, Eskimo gorillas, and Indian gorillas? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If animal life can come from non-animal cells, then why don't ants appear in unopened jars of peanut butter? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- Evolution would be too much of a coincidental accident to be real. (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- Scientists do not know every single step involved in the evolutionary process, therefore they have no reason to believe they have identified any of the steps. (false premise concerning the nature of scientific knowledge)

- 4.5 billion years is not long enough for protein to evolve into humans. (Until people who claim that can explain the theory of evolution, that false statement cannot be debated with them effectively. It is so substanceless there is very little room for even a short conversation about it.)

Does that work for you?

Quote:

---

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual.

---

Wrong. Evolution is an observed fact. Darwin's attempt to explain it is a theory, with ample evidence and as of yet no evidence to the contrary, therefore we can assume that it is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Of course I can do that. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied Eastern religion a great deal. Search my posts in the R/S forum and you will see that I don't make ignorant comments about religious teachings. I try to make sure I know what I am talking about when I debate people. What does it have to do with whether Oneira and Mystic understand the subject of this thread?

---

You're right, I did run off-topic, more so considering the individuals in question are far from "sincere, thoughtful religious" people. I was thinking more about the perceived conflict between evolution and Christianity, or science and religion generally, from which this debate largely stems (except in the case of rare birds like Mystic).

In my experience, most people in Western culture who consider themselves Christian or simply believe in God do not reject evolution. I suspect more are coming to do so because of the insistence of vocal minorities that the two must conflict, a reflection of equally extreme and rigid views on both sides.

Your response to my request for "a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook" is a good case in point. I would characterize your summary as an unexamined, dogmatic, and literalist outlook, suggesting that you can't even conceive of a "sincere, thoughtful religious person." Most people who derive their views in whole or in part from the canonized Bible do not treat the text as an infallible history book. They have some ideas of their own about the meanings of different stories and passages. And, like you and I, most Westerners, Christian or otherwise, view religious crusaders as, in Tony Blair's words, "nutters."

Promoting the idea it's religion vs. science, all or nothing, just does the nutters' work for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

And what things can evolution not explain? That's a very bold claim.

---

The dellusional extremist are certainly an amusing bunch. How about, the universe. Realize your idea of science is limited for once. Or do you know everything like the pope?

1.tao is correct about most people who believe in God not believing the Bible to be literal.

2. I believe in a higher power, but I do not see how this would conflict with evolution. When you think about it, wouldnt a higher being want the world to be able to develop itself? I would think that would be the most beautiful thing it could create. It would be like a cosmic movie to see life's trails, successes and failures. Hell not only life but the whole universe developing thanks to the laws set up, what more could such a being want then to enjoy watching his work? Without having to constantly interfere.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not talking about 'Evolution' against 'the bible'. I find there is more than 2 choices to make.

nor do I, hence why I said, not conflicting with a "higher power"

however I guess I should notate that those two parts of my post are seperate points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

The dellusional extremist are certainly an amusing bunch. How about, the universe. Realize your idea of science is limited for once. Or do you know everything like the pope?

---

Evolution can't explain the universe? I'm shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

1.tao is correct about most people who believe in God not believing the Bible to be literal.

---

If they call themselves Christians, it's their book, therefore up to them to defend what it says and instructs its followers to do, many of whom do take it literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

2. I believe in a higher power, but I do not see how this would conflict with evolution. When you think about it, wouldnt a higher being want the world to be able to develop itself? I would think that would be the most beautiful thing it could create. It would be like a cosmic movie to see life's trails, successes and failures. Hell not only life but the whole universe developing thanks to the laws set up, what more could such a being want then to enjoy watching his work? Without having to constantly interfere.

---

So besides being totally unnecessary to explain how anything happened (besides some initial event or deciding on some universal constants or something), the higher power is also totally uninvolved? Therefore it is meaningless and we can totally disregard its "existence"?

yeah, pretty much. Think about it. If you were a higher power would that not be the ideal universe? One that doest require constant maintenance and you can just enjoy it?

Its why I dont concern myself with the afterlife too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Evolution can't explain the universe? I'm shocked.

---

I know, right? It's almost like they think (very liberal use of that word) they know what they're talking about. The ignorance might even be cute if it weren't so fucking repulsive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Evolution can't explain the universe? I'm shocked.

---

So you think you can explain the universe, and then your shocked when someone normal states they don't know everything....And you wonder why I find you amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

So you think you can explain the universe, and then your shocked when someone normal states they don't know everything....And you wonder why I find you amusing.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

So you think you can explain the universe, and then your shocked when someone normal states they don't know everything....And you wonder why I find you amusing.

---

OK, I'll ask the obvious question...

Where does it say that evolution explains the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Where does it say that evolution explains the universe?

---

You can never seem to think with your own mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

You can never seem to think with your own mind.

---

Mystic, you're a hypocrit. You say you are just learning from us but you refuse to take any information from us or absorb what we are saying. You simply put up a brick wall and stonewall anything people say and then have the audacity to call us blind. I am copying and pasting this response to any other silly posts you make until I finally see you take in something someone says and actually learn from it as you propose to be being but show no actual behaviour of doing.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

How about, the universe

---

Evolution explains the genetic variances among organisms and how the repercussions of the survivability of traits effects the future generation's genetic makeup. It deals with how the inequality of the viability of certain genes leads to a change of the status quo over time.

It does NOT deal with the origin of the universe. It does not even attempt to. That is left solely up to other fields of science. Other fields, which, by the way, are doing quite well. The origin of the universe, however, has no bearing whatsoever on evolution--whether the universe was created in a cosmic big bang, or when Ra masturbated it into existence is absolutely irrelevant. The fact is, organisms evolve. You may debate how they evolve. You may debate why. You may debate whether there is a purpose behind it. You may debate whether a creator intended a specific path for evolution. You cannot, however, deny that it IS happening, and that it has repercussions in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsen

whether the universe was created in a cosmic big bang, or when Ra masturbated it into existence is absolutely irrelevant.

---

Omg that made me laugh out loud. :D

Very good rest of the post too.

Right... so what I have here is the theory of evolution, somehow mixed up in Godly/Unrelated/etc affairs?

Okay... so how can I inject my little musings of insanity (I jest :D):

1) Evolution. By no means a perfect theory. Having done Biology for A-levels, I can understand that whilst very good at explaining the progression and diverging of species, however it won't explain the following:

• The universe - For this you need Astrophysics. Not Biology...
• The Perpetuation of Information - This is an interesting topic, but it isn't something that evolution can explain as well. It works upon different principles.

So, what can I add into this. Evolution is still a work-in-progress theory. It has gone beyond the stage of hypothesis, as it has been observed occurring within nature, but there are a few things that need to be tweaked (of which has already been discussed).

2)Religion/Atheism/etc - Personally, in any topic involving science, I'd like to see Religion kept out. Why? Because it has a nasty habit of complicating matters and generally causes flames to burst out of my screen. Of course, I have had plenty of healthy discussions around religion and philosophy, but most of the time, the discussions I witness are hardly civil. This also applies within politics, education (save for furthering the knowledge of not only one's own culture, but other's as well, as opposed to simply forcing scripture upon one), etc...

As for my beliefs, they are my own. I do not wish to be called religious, atheist, or even agnostic because of them, however, I do not mix this belief with the knowledge I have gained through science and whatever. In my perspective, beliefs and knowledge are two separate things.

3)Troll infestations. A common affliction to even the most healthy of forums. Only cured through a period of quarantine and confinement, in which in the said trolls are left in 'sensory deprivation'. Whilst one must expect a serious struggle for the first few weeks, after a long enough period, the trolls will simply curl up and disappear up their own asses, being unable to sustain themselves on other people's attention.:P

why is this even still a debate? Try being against evolution in any univeristy, and you'll be laughed all the way back to jesusfag county rural usa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Your response to my request for "a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook" is a good case in point. I would characterize your summary as an unexamined, dogmatic, and literalist outlook, suggesting that you can't even conceive of a "sincere, thoughtful religious person."

---

I was just telling you what I was taught, what the Bible says, and what I thought most Christians believe, at least most Christians in my region. If most Christians think the Bible is not literal, then there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that could be considered Christianity. Making a book of rules symbolic when it determines a person's eternal destiny is a really bizarre concept. I can tell you what their books says, but it would take me as many characterizations as there are such Christians to tell you what they think. Once you say a book is purely symbolic, there is no limit to what it can be interpreted as saying. There is no book titled The Disciples' Guide to What Jesus Said He Really Meant When He Spoke Symbolically by The Twelve Disciples or "Burning Bush" Means "Hallucination Revealing The Truth About Nirvana I Found While on Mushrooms" and Other Things I Was Really Saying by Moses.

I think a lot of literalists are sincere. I question their intelligence and sanity, but I think a lot of them believe exactly what the Bible says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think a lot of literalists are sincere. I question their intelligence and sanity, but I think a lot of them believe exactly what the Bible says.

---

Of course they are sincere. Same with the Koran. Sure, some people have realized that they can't live in modern society and follow their religion (all that rock-throwing, etc.), but a lot of people would like to change things back so that they could, and in some places they still are doing it that way.

i thought this thread could use a bit of comical releif.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

Well anyways, im leaning towards evolution a bit after doing more research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

after a long enough period, the trolls will simply curl up and disappear up their own asses

---

Oh yeah. Like that snake that eats itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

and Other Things I Was Really Saying

---

If I ever write a book, I'm using this for its subtitle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsen

when Ra masturbated it into existence is absolutely irrelevant.

---

Atleast you have done some homework. That is suprising. Someone with some knowledge of culture and mythology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

until I finally see you take in something someone says and actually learn from it

---

Would this be your idea of learning or my idea of learning? Do you think I can't handle your idea of learning? Do you wish me to show you? It would be for your benifit not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Would this be your idea of learning or my idea of learning? Do you think I can't handle your idea of learning? Do you wish me to show you? It would be for your benifit not mine.

---

First, it would be learning: gathering new ideas and growing as an individual.

I do not see how else you would define learning unless it became a new word like "ego-inflation". Do you want to just hear people say, "Oh Mystic, you're so right, you're so sexy"? Or do you want people to actually offer ideas for you to consider to develop your already existing ideas?

I do not care if you show me or not - I am pointing out the hypocricy in your statements and how nonsequitor you are. If you can show otherwise, then I learn as an individual. More importantly, it's just fucking annoying to have someone troll around saying, "I don't care about talking to you people; I am learning from you" and then in the next sentence say, "You're blind" or some other vague response that tries to maintain some sanctimonious yet vague definition that desparately tries to reach beyond its context because it has no other chance of surviving otherwise.

The only thing to my benefit is either having you finally able to offer ideas to discuss and allow mutual enlightenment, or learn that you are someone who is a hypocrit and refuses to take others comments into consideration and just pontificates.

That is my main complaint; you are blindly pontificating vague nonsequitor nonsense.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

"Oh Mystic, you're so right, you're so sexy"?

---

For the record, this is all I want people to say of me (except replacing Mystic with Mark, obviously...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

That is my main complaint; you are blindly pontificating vague nonsequitor nonsense

---

Ok, I will no longer do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Ok, I will no longer do that.

---

Look, I am sorry for being harsh but it is annoying when someone proposes that they know something you do not and then do not follow up.

Please realize that I do want to learn and I do not doubt that you are knowledgable. So why not share it with us? I want to hear it.

~

I just posted my answer in the other thread to mark75. (link provided) If you don't like the answer or can't see the sense in it. Fair enough. Ask me what you do not understand and I will reply differently in the most suitable way. If you persist you may find a variety of answers to suit your needs. If you do not persist. I may appear as vague nonsequitor nonsense. This will only happen if you ask me a question. Otherwise you have requested that I not respond from your complaint.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...=45074&page=11

Are you referring to the comment "I created your game show" or "..."?? I really hope you meant to link to another page.

~

It's a joke. What is rationality.... I thought it was funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was just telling you what I was taught, what the Bible says, and what I thought most Christians believe, at least most Christians in my region. If most Christians think the Bible is not literal, then there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that could be considered Christianity.

---

The plethora of denominations and millions of "basically Christian" non-churchgoers do indicate that's the case, yes. Fundamentalists are way too powerful and plentiful in the U.S., no doubt, but they're not the only "real" Christians, nor, in my experience, the majority; they're just the loudest. If you were born among them, I'm sorry. Still, plenty of people hear the "fairy tales" as children, come to question them as young adults, and either on their own or through the guidance of reasonable Christian adults come to see that while the stories may not be perfect documents of history and material cosmology, they still have meaning and truth. Others just "take what you can use, leave the rest," not a Christian scripture, but a natural attitude to take toward a religious text if you don't intend to devote years to contemplating it anytime soon. "Rulebook" and "bullshit" are not the only options.

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

More to the point of evolution and its main opposition, Creationism, you're missing the most basic criticism--not that Creationists have misunderstood science, but that they've misunderstood their basis for opposing it: religion.

It's right that selecting the good bits of scripture is better than using all of the scripture, but when you think about it, it is really your own morals which tells you which bits of the scripture you should discard, so you're really following your own morals anyway and might as well do away with all the metaphors, since the only function they seem to have is causing conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The plethora of denominations and millions of "basically Christian" non-churchgoers do indicate that's the case, yes. Fundamentalists are way too powerful and plentiful in the U.S., no doubt, but they're not the only "real" Christians, nor, in my experience, the majority; they're just the loudest. If you were born among them, I'm sorry. Still, plenty of people hear the "fairy tales" as children, come to question them as young adults, and either on their own or through the guidance of reasonable Christian adults come to see that while the stories may not be perfect documents of history and material cosmology, they still have meaning and truth. Others just "take what you can use, leave the rest," not a Christian scripture, but a natural attitude to take toward a religious text if you don't intend to devote years to contemplating it anytime soon. "Rulebook" and "bullshit" are not the only options.

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

More to the point of evolution and its main opposition, Creationism, you're missing the most basic criticism--not that Creationists have misunderstood science, but that they've misunderstood their basis for opposing it: religion.

---

Like I said, with the Bible aside, there is no philosophical documentation for me to go on in answering your question. There is only a spectrum of things people pull out of their asses. That is why I answered your question according to what the Bible says and what the Southern fundamentalists I live around say. It is also what I was taught and what I believed when I was a Christian. My answer answered your question. Right? If not, then how exactly should I have answered your question? Would you like for me to pick some random guy off the street who calls him self a nonfundamentalist Christian and tell you what he has pulled out of his ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Like I said, with the Bible aside, there is no philosophical documentation for me to go on in answering your question. There is only a spectrum of things people pull out of their asses. That is why I answered your question according to what the Bible says and what the Southern fundamentalists I live around say. It is also what I was taught and what I believed when I was a Christian. My answer answered your question. Right? If not, then how exactly should I have answered your question? Would you like for me to pick some random guy off the street who calls him self a nonfundamentalist Christian and tell you what he has pulled out of his ass?

---

_________

Quote:

---

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

---

Why would you think I might be doing that when I said there is a whole spectrum of people who call themselves Christians but don't base their views on anything but what they make up?

I think Taosaur is jumping too quickly on the "you're being prejudice" argument rather than the more subtextual implications of Universal Minds argument.

The point is that there are many people who consider themselves Christian or any other religion and only loosely follow there beliefs. This immediately goes to show that there are flaws in their beliefs as it is based on an external bias function rather thant the ostensive belief that they purport initially (ie. Christianity).

There are words for these people; hypocrites, apathetic, lazy, non-thinkers, irrational, stupid, ignorant, etc.

All these are in support of the original argument that people ought to think for themselves. Not that fundamentalist believers are the issue; please stop focusing on that.

~

My criticism is out of place in this thread and I apologize--theists arguing against evolution are typically just team players spouting talking points, and UM's criticisms are pretty valid for that group.

I just think it's a mistake to paint religion and religious people with too broad a brush. The story of civilization is largely the story of religions interacting and developing as populations divide, meet, clash, and divide again. Suggesting we get rid of religion is like addressing heart disease by cutting out our hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The story of civilization is largely the story of religions interacting and developing as populations divide, meet, clash, and divide again. Suggesting we get rid of religion is like addressing heart disease by cutting out our hearts.

---

Eloquent, but not very apt in my opinion. Your metaphor depends on our accepting that religion is as vital to civilization as a heart is to a human's life. While its absolutely certain that cutting out a human's heart will end his life, the same cannot be said about cutting religion out of civilization. It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.

---

A very large portion of the Earth's inhabitants are religious. Some more than others, of course.
One of the most important aspects of religion (if not the most important), in my opinion, are the ethics and morals they promote.
The religions give billions of people a set of ethic rules and guidelines.

I would like to expand this to encompass atheists as well. I must admit that I am not very informed about how they derive their morals, but they do have them, and knowing atheists, there is probably good reasoning behind them.

All religious people have reasoning behind their morals (and some atheists can be pretty religious about their views, as well :) ).

"What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".

Well, there would simply not be any reason to adhere to any morals anymore.

Our civilization is based upon morals and rules, and the trust that other people, the government included, will follow those rules.

What would happen if religion was removed?
The end of civilization may very well be the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Eloquent, but not very apt in my opinion. Your metaphor depends on our accepting that religion is as vital to civilization as a heart is to a human's life. While its absolutely certain that cutting out a human's heart will end his life, the same cannot be said about cutting religion out of civilization. It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.

---

It's a very untenable position to hold that you can remove religion from civilization, anymore than a man could cut out his own heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

"What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".

---

Wrong. Morality is innate in humans. Humans invented religion. Therefore, humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

"What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".

Well, there would simply not be any reason to adhere to any morals anymore.

---

Religion is not the reason for morals any more than frogs are the reason for light bulbs. People seem to think that the bible somehow bestows upon them the unique quality of morality. The truth is Atheists are no less moral than any religious group (and a hell of a lot more moral than most).

But don't worry... if religion is ever suddenly removed, we Atheists would be more than happy to teach you how to be moral without a book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.

---

That is a good way of putting it. You also pointed out recently that a much lower percentage of atheists are in prison than the percentage of religious people. That destroys the "Morals only come from religion" argument assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a good way of putting it. You also pointed out recently that a much lower percentage of atheists are in prison than the percentage of religious people. That destroys the "Morals only come from religion" argument assertion.

---

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Wrong. Morality is innate in humans. Humans invented religion. Therefore, humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.

---

This may be so, I am not denying this. But not all religious people holds the same view, that morale is innate. Many would even say that humans have a disposition towards doing evil things; the opposite of having morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Religion is not the reason for morals any more than frogs are the reason for light bulbs. People seem to think that the bible somehow bestows upon them the unique quality of morality. The truth is Atheists are no less moral than any religious group (and a hell of a lot more moral than most).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

I am not very informed about how [atheists] derive their morals, but they do have them, and knowing atheists, there is probably good reasoning behind them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

But don't worry... if religion is ever suddenly removed, we Atheists would be more than happy to teach you how to be moral without a book.

---

But would it be possible to teach moral to billions of people?


Please, I am not trying to attack anyone here. It is just my musings. Understanding each others viewpoints is very important.
I have never understood why people with different perspectives seems to have to yell and fight. There is always some common ground. We should all take it.


I feel trapped by the words we have to use. Religion, atheists, those words are so full of prejudice.
I prefer human to both.
Humans have belief, belief in religion, belief in atheism.
Belief is also a good word. Some things cannot, at least for now, be proven or disproven. There is no problem with this.


And, to go on topic; evolution is a good model to describe the world's life. Just as gravitational theory is a good model to describe gravitation.
Often, models are extremely close to the real thing.

Here also I see no argument. Why would I? Evolution seems to work.
Of course there is a philosophical point to be made in that we use induction to prove our scientific theories. But we have to live with this very minimal risk of wrong conclusions. There simply is no other way (that I know of, at least).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.

---

It would be impossible to demonstrate that religion is THE source of morality. Even wild animals have moral codes. Zebras have to spar with an intended female's father and impress him enough to get his approval before mating with the female. That is one example of many. Have zebras accepted Christ?

I didn't mention Christianity, nor do I think it is the source of religion or morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I didn't mention Christianity, nor do I think it is the source of religion or morality.

---

The Christianity reference was just an example used to illustrate that wild animals have morals without religion.

I would argue that it is extremely difficult to accurately discern the motivations of animals when referencing such complex actions as moral decisions. I would have to see concrete evidence in order to be convinced that the actions of zebras were due to a moral code and not situational or intuitive necessity.

I would also say that any form of religion in the animal kingdom would be extremely hard to recognize and therefore it would be next to impossible to make an accurate claim one way or the other in regards to its existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.

---

Wrong, see, here I'll do the opposite really quickly, then you can say how it would go the other way.

It's very easy to see how morals evolve in animals that live in social groups, and you can observe the rules that various species who live in groups have, concerning their social behavior. Humans spent much of their evolutionary time living in small tribal groups, in which many people were related, and cooperation was necessary fo survival. It's obvious that all human cultures have the same basic moral codes (don't kill, don't steal, lots of rules about sex). This is true of cultures seperated widely over time and space, and applies even to non-religious people. As people expand on what they innately feel to be wrong, this become the moral code that is part of religion.


I guess you could believe that God handed Moses some stone tablets with the rules written on them, but you wonder how those people survived so long without "thou shalt not kill" rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I would argue that it is extremely difficult to accurately discern the motivations of animals when referencing such complex actions as moral decisions. I would have to see concrete evidence in order to be convinced that the actions of zebras were due to a moral code and not situational or intuitive necessity.

---

No, it's not actually as difficult as you say. If you studied the subject, which you obviously haven't, you would know this. That's how you "see the concrete evidence"; it's not like someone can take a picture of an animal and prove something to you. You can't get it that easily, you actually have to learn about the subject before you point out the flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

This may be so, I am not denying this. But not all religious people holds the same view, that morale is innate. Many would even say that humans have a disposition towards doing evil things; the opposite of having morals.

---

See above. Of course religious people don't have the same veiw, they don't believe in science or evolution, and think that magic put morals in people.

I simplified it above, of course there are other things that evolve when people live in small tribal groups--such as the tendency to fight other groups. That's why, altho people usually feel an inhibition against killing, that is easily overcome if necessary by feelings of solidarity with your own group and hatred and fear of people outside the group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

Please, I am not trying to attack anyone here. It is just my musings. Understanding each others viewpoints is very important.
I have never understood why people with different perspectives seems to have to yell and fight. There is always some common ground. We should all take it.

---

Don't worry, I don't think any atheists will be offended by your comments. We are just discussing ideas, that's all, nobody needs to get offended. It is usually the other way around--religious people don't like to be disagreed with; I think atheists get used to it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

Humans have belief, belief in religion, belief in atheism.
Belief is also a good word. Some things cannot, at least for now, be proven or disproven. There is no problem with this.

---

Religious beliefs are faith, which means believing things despite evidence to the contrary. Atheists need proof for the ideas that they have. They are not equally valid viewpoints. The fact that something cannot be disproven does not mean that it exists.

I have studied behavioral psychology (of course, I'm no expert) and yet I have still seen no definitive evidence of moral codes among animals. What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing. What have you studied that has lead you to believe otherwise? There are alternative forms of evidence that you could provide other than a picture.

Also, not all cultures developed moral stigmas about killing and sex, and even the ones that have moral guidelines regarding these things differ drastically from each other. The Romans and the Greeks had very few social restrictions when it came to sex, and most early meso-american cultures were not against killing for virtually any reason.

As far as your comment about Moses is concerned; religion existed long before Moses; among the Jews and otherwise. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a moral code that predated religion, as it is near impossible to tell when the advent of religion came about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Of course religious people don't have the same veiw, they don't believe in science or evolution

---

This statement is either disingenuous or deluded. The vast majority of 'religious people,' no matter how you define 'religious,' believe in science at least insofar as it produces technology, even if they perceive bias in some work. Many also believe in evolution to varying degrees, though pernicious misinformation erodes that demographic. Waving a strawman does not support your claims to objectivity and reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Religious beliefs are faith, which means believing things despite evidence to the contrary.

---

0.o I think your dictionary's broken. You're treating faith like something exotic that you don't experience. It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

Taosaur,

For one example; Perhaps you could explain peoples faith in praying?

There is no evidence that this has ever helped anyone. Further, it has never done anything like heal a severed limb or something that could have happened, by chance, without praying. Statistics can explain just about any 'miracle' caused by praying.

So why do people have faith in praying?

For another example;

Having a religious faith immediately sets forth a bias to scientific research. You can have a hypothesis that a God might exist, but if you are confident and believe a God exists regardless of any evidence or logic, then you have no reasoning for it. Furthermore, faith limits research as you can easily retort "God caused X" to whatever proposed research hypothesis is presented.

Of course, several do not do this, but the point is that you can and many do.

I hope you see where I was going with the latter part of this.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please read the thread before posting.

Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc. It is a fact that it happens.

If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.

~

---

This is what we will never be able to prove or Disprove however if we presume that this is true and that we do infact exist then Evolution would also be a conclusive Theorem under the existance and the rules that Apply to this universe.

O'nus how do you propose to stop people from saying God caused x god caused y etc, you cant! Also I dont understand why we cant accept theorems which have been proven to scientifcily correct to the Variables present at the times with God. Why do we have to deal in absolutes all the time? (I know this is going off topic a bit soz)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Verto

This is what we will never be able to prove or Disprove however if we presume that this is true and that we do infact exist then Evolution would also be a conclusive Theorem under the existance and the rules that Apply to this universe.

---

Are you saying that evolution is also a preconceived bias..? I am not sure what you are saying here.

Quote:

---

O'nus how do you propose to stop people from saying God caused x god caused y etc, you cant! Also I dont understand why we cant accept theorems which have been proven to scientifcily correct to the Variables present at the times with God. Why do we have to deal in absolutes all the time? (I know this is going off topic a bit soz)

---

You can stop people from saying and believing falsehoods by simply enlightening them. (ie. gravity, math, psychology, etc.). We do not have to deal with absolutes, but we ought to deal with empirical observation and those things which we can show and see. Tangible material that is not subject to manipulation, lies, and bias.

Say I have a deck of cards. You want to get the ace of spades from me. You can bet whether or not the card is in the deck to win. Theists will bet that the card is in the deck, Atheists will question it first and likely not bet in the end. They will want to see reasoning to believe that it is in there, not otherwise. I hope you see what I am trying to analgously illustrate.

What do you think...?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Taosaur,

For one example; Perhaps you could explain peoples faith in praying?

There is no evidence that this has ever helped anyone. Further, it has never done anything like heal a severed limb or something that could have happened, by chance, without praying. Statistics can explain just about any 'miracle' caused by praying.

So why do people have faith in praying?

---

1. because it feels good--prayer can have a "zeroing" effect similar to meditation, refocusing the mind and setting aside daily preoccupations
2. because they have perceived intervention in their own lives--again, you won't convince them to adopt strict materialism by citing statistics any more than they'll convince you to pray by laying out their biography. It doesn't mean they're bad or stupid, they just have different experiences and priorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

For another example;

Having a religious faith immediately sets forth a bias to scientific research. You can have a hypothesis that a God might exist, but if you are confident and believe a God exists regardless of any evidence or logic, then you have no reasoning for it. Furthermore, faith limits research as you can easily retort "God caused X" to whatever proposed research hypothesis is presented.

---

If you've set up a scientific study of whether God exists, you've already got issues. There's a reason people drawn to the sciences also tend to be atheists and deists; it suits their way of thinking. For them, the scientific method may be the ultimate Golden Rule, applicable in variable measure to every aspect of life. For the rest of humanity, its relevance approaches zero.

Take leadership, for instance. While leaders can and should take into account the advice of experts, in the end they can only be so analytical--many decisions require intuiting systems too large and chaotic for detailed study and determining how to navigate or reshape them toward desirable outcomes.

Science and empiricism can and do coexist with religion and mysticism in the majority of people alive today. All of the above serve us as a society and serve the needs of different individuals with the society; all of them are susceptible to corruption and distortion; from my perspective all of them are equally imaginary; and all of them need more work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

1. because it feels good--prayer can have a "zeroing" effect similar to meditation, refocusing the mind and setting aside daily preoccupations
2. because they have perceived intervention in their own lives--again, you won't convince them to adopt strict materialism by citing statistics any more than they'll convince you to pray by laying out their biography. It doesn't mean they're bad or stupid, they just have different experiences and priorities.

---

1) Could not you say that about just about any fetish? That is no justification. If it is, we could say that child pornography is justified because it 'zeroes' the fetished one. Of course, I think we both agree that this is not a justification or reason.

2) Perceving intervention is very subject to confirmation bias when approached with the randomness of the miraculous events and their sparse nature. That alone quells the validity of its initial nature; to act as a catalyst for the miraculous. How can it be a reliable source for miracles when it has absolutely no results or reason to believe in results? Would you say the samething about someone who tucks their shirt in before each game? This is superstitition and we both know that superstition is as profound as any anecodotal reasoning.

Quote:

---

If you've set up a scientific study of whether God exists, you've already got issues. There's a reason people drawn to the sciences also tend to be atheists and deists; it suits their way of thinking. For them, the scientific method may be the ultimate Golden Rule, applicable in variable measure to every aspect of life. For the rest of humanity, its relevance approaches zero.

---

Right, if someone did set up a study for whether or not God exists, they are going to face problems. However, consider the following:

Study: To see what that cause is of a death caused by an implausible incident (ie. hockey puck flying from a game and killing one single audience member):
Theist: Conceives of a preconception of fate; they died because they were meant to die. Now they set out to prove this or disprove this.
Atheist: No preconcpetions. Invesitgates empirical reasoning free-from confirmation bias.

See the difference now?

Quote:

---

Science and empiricism can and do coexist with religion and mysticism in the majority of people alive today. All of the above serve us as a society and serve the needs of different individuals with the society; all of them are susceptible to corruption and distortion; from my perspective all of them are equally imaginary; and all of them need more work.

---

Empiricism and Religion cannot coexist because they directly contradict each other. The one requires evidence and reason for facticity wheras the latter only requires a fundamental belief and idea; worship and memes to elevate it from an idea to a set tradition. The tradition easily becomes longer and the longer it becomes the more powerful it becomes. There is no reason for it, tradition is not a justification for a doctrine. The ancients slept with Catamites, young boys, as a tradition; does that mean it is justified or rational?

Militant Atheists do set out to disprove God and this is where I think you are subject to your own criticism; you are focusing only on those militant Atheists and Scientists that are setting forth to disprove things rather than investigate things. Please recognize the distinguishment and that this is the initial definitions that I have always ardently argued for.

~

O'nus, tell me this: are you convinced that there is one correct set of principles to live by, and one correct method for arriving at them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

O'nus, tell me this: are you convinced that there is one correct set of principles to live by, and one correct method for arriving at them?

---

No, I think that is the room for debate.

If I were to answer this question instinctively, I would say "Discourse". Discourse is the best thing to live by because without it nothing would exist. We need interaction. All living things require interaction and discourse in order to survive and to develop.

With that said, if I have prevented or deterred any form of discourse, I want to be told so; I would do the same in turn. Although, I humbly note that you have been a very well versed and honorable person to speak with; you have taught me a great lot over the last while. For that, I thank you.

The ethical body is what is up for debate. That is what I am trying to avoid in my discussion becaues I hold, at this time, to be of profound aporetic nature. However, if that is what you want to strive towards, please let me know.

~

I see two big problems in this thread so far - both are vague or absent definitions. I think we should all agree on a good definition of these two terms before we continue our discussion.

The first word is "morals". If you define "morals" as a universal code of conduct, I would think most non-theists would say that they do not have morals. We do have personal opinions as to what is 'right' or 'wrong' to do in a given situation, but not in general (like thou shalt not kill - what if someone's intent on killing you?). I personally include these individual judgments of subjective 'right' and 'wrong' in my definition of morality. However,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing.

---

That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are. So let's get this straight. Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?


The other word is of course 'faith'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

---

I would argue that one can never know anything for 'certain', just beyond reasonable doubt - does that mean that everything is 'faith'? My definition of faith is also not "a belief held despite evidence of the contrary", because what if there is massively more evidence in favor of a belief?

I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence". In this light, personal experiences do count as evidence. However, assumptions and conjecture based on these experiences require faith. For example, the belief that "I was walking through the woods the other day and suddenly I felt a great joy, and a great clarity" is not faith-based. However, if one extends this experience and says "God touched me in the woods and now I see the light" is faith-based.

A trust in someone is also not 'faith' under my definition - it is a belief backed by your previous observations of their competence or success.

Can everyone agree on this definition of faith?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have studied behavioral psychology (of course, I'm no expert) and yet I have still seen no definitive evidence of moral codes among animals.What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing. What have you studied that has lead you to believe otherwise? There are alternative forms of evidence that you could provide other than a picture.

---

I'm not clear what you are using as a definition of "morals" if you can't see evidence of what we would call moral behavior in humans in animals as well. To start very simply, it is moral behavior when a when a mother takes care of her children instead of abandoning them, right? Obviously animals do this. A step up might be altruistic behavior in animals, examples of which can easily be found. (I'm defining that as an animal risking danger to itself to help another, in addition the parental behavior). Another analagous behavior to that which we call moral in humans is the aversion of breeding with siblings, parents, etc. Some animals have much more complex rules about sex even than that. Animals who live in groups have much more complex social "moral" behavior than those that live individually. Every human moral behavior can easily be explained by the biopsychosocial model of evolution, and in fact, make no sense otherwise (barring belief of course in a higher power who created the universe and is also deeply interested in human's sex lives.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, not all cultures developed moral stigmas about killing and sex, and even the ones that have moral guidelines regarding these things differ drastically from each other.

---

OK, the vast, vast majority of cultures have moral guidelines concerning killing and sex. I guess I shouldn't say "all", but I'd be surprised if there were any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The Romans and the Greeks had very few social restrictions when it came to sex,

---

:shock:So incredibly wrong I'm not going to bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

and most early meso-american cultures were not against killing for virtually any reason.

---

:shock: :shock: Wow, so wrong I'm seriously starting to wonder about you. You must have studied history at the same place you studied biology.

I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As far as your comment about Moses is concerned; religion existed long before Moses; among the Jews and otherwise. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a moral code that predated religion, as it is near impossible to tell when the advent of religion came about.

---

Well.. that actually is more support for my argument than yours, I would say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

This statement is either disingenuous or deluded. The vast majority of 'religious people,' no matter how you define 'religious,' believe in science at least insofar as it produces technology, even if they perceive bias in some work. Many also believe in evolution to varying degrees, though pernicious misinformation erodes that demographic. Waving a strawman does not support your claims to objectivity and reason.

---

Yea, you're right, that was kind of a stupid thing to say. Most religious people of course believe in most aspects of science; they just away from it turn to faith when it comes to geology, biology, etc.; whichever happens to contradict something that they have faith in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

0.o I think your dictionary's broken. You're treating faith like something exotic that you don't experience. It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

---

Well, I guess it can be used in both senses, can't it? I have faith that my car will start in the morning, but I can't prove it. I meant it in the religious sense of faith, which is belief despite a lack of or even evidence to the contrary, not the wider meaning of things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence".

---

That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with confidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.

---

That's precisely the case with religious faith of all kinds. Like the example of your car, virtually every action we take requires faith for us to proceed. Religious teachings and practices, when they're working, serve as both a well of faith--an energizing force--and a toolkit for shaping the mindstream to proceed more easily, with less resistance.

I take my personal understanding of religion from Buddhism, which is a very deliberate and self-conscious religion, but it is a religion. The other religions, and many secular philosophies, do the same things Buddhism does, but with different styles and emphases. Also, I would say, different strengths and weaknesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with confidence.

---

I understand. You can take this route and it does make sense. It is faithful to believe in the uniformity of nature; that if nature does one thing a certain way, it will continue to do so. For example, once we empirically view one thing, we rely on nature to keep that empirical observation uniform. However, even this is a inductive inference to the unpredictable future. We cannot empirically observe the future, only predict and predictions are residual incarnations of implications and derived from inferences. Reinforcing these would be invariable beliefs and faith to theorems such as the uniformity of nature.

Is this what you are saying?

There is one problem with this; if we adhere to the randomness and arbitrary nature of reality, we must propogate this logic to universality. We must be able to apply it to all systems of view otherwise it is subject to bias and extends beyond its context to a separate entity; another set of beliefs.

This being the premise, we ought to not believe in the uniform nature of anything. Every moment ought to be random and give room for every single possibility. This means you ought to give leeway to the possibility that you can turn into jello in the next moment of reading this very setence.

My question is then, how plausible and pragmatic is this approach? Unfortunately, we are tangible mortal beings that rely on a physical approach to sensing reality and require a set of beliefs and preconceptions in order to best structure and interact with our environment. Without these, we would all inexorably die.

What do you think...?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say.

---

Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are. So let's get this straight. Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?

---

I can't tell but it seems like you are agreeing with me. I was arguing that behavioral patterns that respond to social stresses were not the same as morals. Are you saying that they are? It is my belief that morality is opposed to natural social responses. This can be illustrated by a feeling of remorse after an 'immoral' act, even though no negative consequences were experienced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.

---

OK, whatever. Maybe you'll learn about it someday.

These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol

However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.

I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that GOD made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Verto

These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol

However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.

I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that GOD made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?

---

I was just watching Sam Harris lecture from last year's Beyond Belief conference, and he provided a good context for this question by distinguishing between evidence suggesting a god vs. being compatible with a god. When you look at evidence with the assumption that there is a god and ask, is this evidence compatible with my belief?--as you point out, you can always answer yes. If, however, you examine the evidence of cosmology, biology, history and other disciplines, and you ask instead, what does this evidence suggest?--the existence of a benevolent, involved creator is unlikely to come up.

Thank you, I like that answer. That is a very interesting way to look at this repetitive view that alot of Christians come up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please read the thread before posting.

Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc. It is a fact that it happens.

If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.

~

---

Theory is not a fact itself, but rather a statement about facts (it also has many other qualities, such as repeated, independently verifiable results; that's already been mentioned though). That said, i'm not denying the truth in theories, i am simply being pedantic about semantics, rhyming all the while...
I find it horrifying and at the same time hilarious that there has been a drive to teach Creationism alongside The Theory of Evolution; the former is a collection of untestable statements, and the latter is what i defined earlier - an attempt at truth, and a pretty damn good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

All you have to do is google or go to the Library. And plenty of information, modern science, quantum physics, etc. It will show you that evolution is an older model that doesn't hold up to the present known results of the latest work anyway. There will always be dinosaurs, but progress cannot be ignored. The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all. If those who bark at me for not responding correctly were more interested in the truth and less interested in making me look bad. Maybe they would realize their fragile ego has already being shattered by someone more qualified that they havn't even being bothered to read about yet.

---

What are you on about? The double slit experiment has nothing at all to do with evolution, nor will it ever have anything to do with evolution.
Let me say that again. Nothing to do with evolution.
Guess what, i play guitar. That also has nothing to do with evolution.

If you are going to construct an argument by referring to random things, your argument will get shot apart pretty quickly.

For those who don't know, the double slit experiment is a test of the wave-particle duality of matter and light. It works by allowing one photon at a time to pass between one of two slits. The experiment produced an interference pattern that could only be explained by wave theory, while a single photon appears particle-like in nature. Thus, through displaying both wave and particle attributes of photons, the double slit experiment confirmed wave-particle duality.

Hence, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory and can neither prove nor disprove it.

Sorry if this was already mentioned.

Spoiler for The truth about evolution:

http://thetruthforyouth.com/NEW%20Co...mages/SM_1.jpg

http://thetruthforyouth.com/NEW%20Co...mages/SM_2.jpg

http://thetruthforyouth.com/NEW%20Co...mages/SM_3.jpg

http://thetruthforyouth.com/NEW%20Co...mages/SM_4.jpg

http://thetruthforyouth.com/NEW%20Co...mages/SM_5.jpg

http://thetruthforyouth.com/NEW%20Co...mages/SM_6.jpg

Quote:

---

The truth about evolution

---

Mmm, strawmenberry.

Guys, evolution is quite simple at base:

When split appart and copied during reproduction at cellular level, the DNA molecule will be changed slightly from the parent molecule. Why?

Because copying isn't perfect. There is no intelligence to it, so you get a slightly altered molecule.

That's it. There is NOTHING more to biological evolution. The rest is just the application of this basic fact and other spring-offs from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

When split appart and copied during reproduction at cellular level, the DNA molecule will be changed slightly from the parent molecule.

---

But that's racist! :shock:

what you just described it mutation, that's only part of evolution. sometimes those random mutations are detrimental.

Evolution = mutation + natural selection :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

But that's racist! :shock:

---

:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

what you just described it mutation, that's only part of evolution. sometimes those random mutations are detrimental.

Evolution = mutation + natural selection :P

---

No. Evolution is mutation.

Natural Selection is just an explanation of why things are the way they are.

Saying NS is evolution usually impresses that there is something "selecting" what survives or not-- That's not true.

Mutation is the simplist, most understandable and fundamental part of evolution.

Not the scientific theory of evolution, but evolution itself.

I'm sure that we're all seen this, but it's still funny

I've seen that guy at JFL before, he's hilarious :rolllaugh:...

I hate when religious people tell me there is no evolution:?

OMG ninja that was hilarious!!

lovely!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm sure that we're all seen this, but it's still funny

---

Five stars! :cool: