|
|
Many people don't believe in Evolution, are they afraid what we might find of our past? What if we are really evolved from sea living organisms like fish? Does that make us any less of what we are now?
I personally believe that it doesn't really matter what we are in the past. Who knows? We might be evolved from small living mammals lived a long time ago like mouses. We might be related to pigs. That doesn't make us stupid. In fact, nothing can change what we have achieved. We are human, an intelligent speice that is above all other organism on this planet. We have proven ourself to be. What other organism can build the Great Wall of China? Invent computer?
None.
mind you, what other creature/organism can blow up our world 10 times over?
Someone had to be on top of the food chain, and i am glad it was us, no matter what form you want to believe we evolved from. Overall, we are a smart species, but at the same time, we are losing our roots with mother nature, and if we tick her off too much, all the computers in the world won't help in the least bit ....... so whos gonna have the last laugh then?
We will still laugh because maybe we could move into space, to another planet 
| Billwaa wrote: | | We will still laugh because maybe we could move into space, to another planet |
Yea in like 250 years we will probably have the technology but knowing mankind we will find a way to kill our planet before then.
| Code of Ruin wrote: | | Billwaa wrote: | | We will still laugh because maybe we could move into space, to another planet |
Yea in like 250 years we will probably have the technology but knowing mankind we will find a way to kill our planet before then. |
I believe we can do it in less than 250 years. We have the technology already. Think of it this way, we just have to make a very large version of a space shuttle.
It's not that we're afraid, it just that we either don't want to know or we don't think there's enough evidence. Same story as the bible and learning lessons from socio-diplomatics in history. Ignorance I would call it.
Its not that we are afraid...There is always this healhty debate between evolution and Bible going on for ages now....But there is no overwhelming evidence in the favour of evolution. It is just a theory which could be a correct one. That's it
I think that evolution was the most likely thing to of happened to us. I mean i think we all evolved from ape's as there is overwhelming evidence that the structures of their heads and the rest of their bodys is very similar to us. but most recently i watched a program at school when they found a skull of an unknow animal that had the characteristics of both the human and the ape. thats why i think we had evolved from apes!
i believe that the concept of evolution from the ape is true.. it is a natural process of mutation and natural selection to produce the best of each kind.. this has been scientifically proven..
Theoretically proven in culture dishes, but no emperical evidence of half-man, half-monkey exists. This has baffled evolutionists.
| Lennon wrote: | | Theoretically proven in culture dishes, but no emperical evidence of half-man, half-monkey exists. This has baffled evolutionists. |
Ehm, that "culture dishes" would be empiric proof. Not of mans evolvement from ape to...man, but non the less empirical evidence.
Also, the theory of evolution is itself evolving and I must say it is far more promising than the retreating creationist view that offers no real explanation at all.
Hi, Billwaa! You ask a good question. Here's something to think about.
| Billwaa wrote: | | Many people don't believe in Evolution, are they afraid what we might find of our past? |
There are going to be different reasons, but here’s one cause-and-effect I think will be true for some:
(1) Some people want to feel that they have an important purpose for existing. Some people feel despair if they don’t have this. They wouldn’t know what to do without the important purpose in life. They’re not comfortable just living and enjoying life however they can. They want a reason for why they’re here.
(2) But, however much they want that important purpose feeling, they’re not able to conjure it up from within themselves.
(3) Since they don’t know the important purpose, and can’t get it from within, the next step is to believe that there must be an external “higher” being (e.g., God) who does know. When someone believes a very important and very smart God knows the important purpose for them, it solves a lot. For, then, they need not search for the purpose anymore, because at least God knows it, even if they don’t.
(4) But then, given the lack of evidence for God [%1] and also given the evidence against him [%2], to maintain this belief in God, a whole lot needs to be conjured up. Goodness gracious, now we’re really getting into the work area!
[%1: He’s apparently afraid to appear directly to people; he depends on people believing on faith.]
[%2: Like, the innocent people suffering all over the place, evidence of which conflicts with a loving God.]
(5) So, one of the main tasks that then must be accomplished is to gain converts, as many as possible. And these converts must also believe, not based on evidence -- since there is none, or at least not enough, as they themselves admit -- but based on faith. But this kind of faith is ruined when people start going down the scientific road of discovering that they came from “lesser” beings. If people started feeling comfortable that they are related to “low-life” animals, then they won’t feel the same need for some external important purpose; they might start accepting Reality on its own rather than needing some kind of invented super-Reality.
(6) The best way to stop people from going down a scientific path is to nip it in its bud. Make it un-cool to believe in evolution! Make it cool to have come straight from God (a very important and very smart super-natural being) and un-cool to have come from those dirty, nasty, dumb animals! And of course the absolute best way to stop any scientific methods from happening is to promote an “educational” system that catches children early and force feeds the one, true, faith-based way: government schools.
(7) Keeping the monopoly of government schools then becomes the new important purpose. Viola! Important purpose solved -- even better than before!
(This scenario doesn’t fit everyone. I did say “some”.  )
OK all the scientists think that we evolved from apes, BUT from who did the apes evolve. Take it from this side. So probably that would be the 1st thing we need to find out
| Billwaa wrote: | That doesn't make us stupid. In fact, nothing can change what we have achieved. We are human, an intelligent speice that is above all other organism on this planet. We have proven ourself to be. What other organism can build the Great Wall of China? Invent computer?
None. |
Why do humans assume that variety=inferiority?
It's even evident in how we treat various members of our own species, and if you look at it objectively and honestly, you will see it in how we treat animals.
You think humans are above all other species because of our technology?
That same technology, viewed objectively, could point towards the exact opposite conclusion. It certainly hasn't improved our lives much.
Everybody who doesn't believe in evolution theory should put away their Bibles and start treating some Darwin and Neo-darwinism books.
To make it simple we evolved from apes, apes evolved from smaller mammals, smaller mammals evolved from creatures that live in the sea, they evolved from the even smaller creatures they evolved from a single cell organisms, and so on and so on.
Anyway, I still find it curious people keep believing in God.however no real proof as it are being given for the existence of a god, science on the other hand gives a lot of proof.
| deleenheir wrote: | Everybody who doesn't believe in evolution theory should put away their Bibles and start treating some Darwin and Neo-darwinism books.
To make it simple we evolved from apes, apes evolved from smaller mammals, smaller mammals evolved from creatures that live in the sea, they evolved from the even smaller creatures they evolved from a single cell organisms, and so on and so on.
Anyway, I still find it curious people keep believing in God.however no real proof as it are being given for the existence of a god, science on the other hand gives a lot of proof. |
There is no real tangible evidence the that theory of evolution really works.
I've yet to see an animal evolve into a totally different species.
Note : To see is to believe. Explanations can be structured so that it seems to make sense, so no explanation needed if someone cannot show me that evolution really works.
| stinky321 wrote: | | OK all the scientists think that we evolved from apes, BUT from who did the apes evolve. Take it from this side. So probably that would be the 1st thing we need to find out |
Erm, from others mammals? I don't know what species was before the monkey, but I am pretty sure it's already discovered. We only hear about the ape - human relation because we are humans.
I don't think anyone said we evolved from monkeys. I think, and this is NOT my field, that the idea is that we evolved from a series of primates, as did monkeys, apes, etc. We have common ancestors but we followed different paths.
So, monkeys aren't our ancestors, just cousins 
I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. I think the Christian right wing has done itself a lot of harm. Standing on flawed arguments is not a good way to defend what you believe. Christianity can and should stand on truth (in particular Jesus' life) without resorting to extreme arguments (such as many put forward against evolution).
Everyone is so focused on literally taking every word of their religion. It's hard to accept a newer flexible belief which branches off from both religion and from evolution. Think about this: So we all evolved from single-celled organisms and then from 'lesser' mammals. Who's to say God didn't play his part in that? I mean, we can assume we metamorphasized from ameobas, but there's a lot of chance and fate involved for us to go from mindless creatures into the only beings on earth with proper brain power. Think of all the other 'things' that could be above us.
We're too focused on religion to pay real attention to what God really represents, so in turn, evolution gets attacked simply because people cling on to the only faith they understand (by mindlessly following it). Not trying to force views upon anyone, but a lot of scientist have opted for this rather than atheism. I hope it never becomes a religious belief, that'd just ruin it. I think if there is a God, he spilled a giant test tube and we're the mold that grew in the crack of his floor-tiles.
Go Mold!
i think what stinky321 was getting at is if we evolved, eventually you get back to being made of nothing with life in it. amino acids formed billions of years ago being one theory. however, where did the building blocks for those amino acids come from?
i personally don't think that's the case. you can say what you want, but there is not scientific proof of evolution in the macro sense. sure, there's adaptation to the environment and survival of the fittest (micro evolution), but that doesn't mean there has to be mutations from one to the next. nor do similarities between species mean they evolved from the same thing. if we want to talk facts, the only fact of the matter is that we can't prove evolution or creationism, because that deals with things that have occured in the past and cannot be duplicated emperically in a lab. both are theories that have to be accepted on a basis of faith, to a large degree.
i'm of the creationism school of thought. why? because it makes more sense to me than the odds of evolution from some amino acids. mathmatically, the odds of that happening to where we are now is in favor of a 747 being formed from a random explosion in a junk yard with the right components lying around, compared to getting the result we see every day.
billwaa, you asked if people are affraid to learn the truth, in effect. the same could be asked of you (not trying to attack anyone, please don't take it that way). does the idea that there may be a God scare you? as for me, evolution doesn't scare me. if what i believe is wrong, then oh well, i haven't lost anything.
an interesting theory regarding creationism: assuming that God created the world, who's to say he couldn't have created the world in an 'aged' state? the Christian Bible implies that Adam and Eve and the animals were not created as children, or at least leaves nothing to suggest that they were. why couldn't God have done the same with the earth?
| dfreeman616 wrote: | | if we want to talk facts, the only fact of the matter is that we can't prove evolution or creationism, because that deals with things that have occured in the past and cannot be duplicated emperically in a lab. both are theories that have to be accepted on a basis of faith, to a large degree. |
A theory doesn't need to be duplicated to be proved or experimented in a lab. You can't duplicate an explosion of a star in a lab. But you can see them very frequently in the universe and observe them that way.
If you believe that you can't prove things that have occured in the past, then why don't you release everyone in prison? Their crimes can't be proven, can't be duplicated emperically and rely on faith.
What about the second world war? Is that faith too? If one religion claims that the world started in 1970, should we learn that to students at school, that that is yet another possibility? And of course god is able to make the world look like it was that old then. 
I don't know if any of you have ever heard of Zacharias Sitchin or his "Annunaki" theory of how homosapiens came into being. Pretty interesting if improbably stuff. Short story is an alien race came to this planet some 200,000 years ago to mine gold and other minerals for their depleted planet in what is now southern Iraq. They eventually needed a slave race, so they gentically "spliced" the DNA of homoerectus (cave men) with their own to create homosapiens. The story actually does match up really well with the Sumerican tablets and explains alot of other things, but it's quite a bit to digest.
i think you're missing my point. i'm not saying it has to be proven in a lab to be true. if that were the case, very little of life could be 'proven.' however, we can't scientifically know the origins of life or this planet.
not being able to emperically prove crimes have been commited still doesn't compare to this. there's more than one to prove things. historical evidence, for example, relies on testimonies, usually written but sometimes spoken. there's a variety of standards a text has to meet before being considered historical. when that happens, however, it is condsidered historically proven. the origin of the earth, however, has no witnesses or accounts of it, except if you rely on religious literature. science is not the absoulte authority on the past.
i'm not saying that God did that for sure, because i don't know. sure, people can make all sorts of crazy statements, but that doesn't mean they should be taught. if someone claims that the world was made in 1970, there's certainly enough evidence to contridict that. however, there isn't enough evidence to absoultely contridict either creationsim or evolution.
i belive find past is great to kn ow more about our ansister and culture hope i get time michine if so i be the person to correct the error and aware of right stuff
| dfreeman616 wrote: | | i'm not saying that God did that for sure, because i don't know. sure, people can make all sorts of crazy statements, but that doesn't mean they should be taught. if someone claims that the world was made in 1970, there's certainly enough evidence to contridict that. however, there isn't enough evidence to absoultely contridict either creationsim or evolution. |
You can hardly contradict the age of the earth and the universe. The light we see from the stars did millions of years to reach our earth. In Greenland every year a new layer of snow is formed. You can see it with your own eyes. There are millions of those layers.
If you look at fossils then you can see the evolution of species with your own eyes.
I really don't understand why you say there isn't enough evidence for it. Of course god may have created fossils of millions or billions of years ago, the same for stars. But if that would be the case, then maybe he wanted us to believe the earth and the universe are really so old?
I feel more comfortable with Evolution than Genesis(described by any religion). It brings too much of supernatural involvement and i am sure it will hinder our growth in Science and Technology. Science describes everything from Creation of stars to humans but what existed before the Big Bang(I believe in Big Bang) and what caused the Bang?
| mustaq wrote: | | i belive find past is great to kn ow more about our ansister and culture hope i get time michine if so i be the person to correct the error and aware of right stuff |
By trying to correct past mistakes by travelling time, we could make an even bigger mistake but you can argue that u ll again travel time to correct it but why bother, History has proved that nature can correct its mistakes.
i'm not arguing that the world was created teh way for certain. i already said i believe the world was created, but i don't know how it was. i believe the genesis account in the hebrew/christian scriptures, but i'm not saying it had to be 6 literal days. Genesis chapter one is hebrew poetry in its form, which also explains a slightly differant description in Genesis 2. is the earth as old as millions or billions of years old? i don't know. perhaps our measurements are wrong, perhaps they're true. regardless, that doesn't matter to me. neither one changes what i believe, because either one works. what i take issue with is the baseless claim of evolution of man. there really isn't the scientific evidence to support that theory.
| dfreeman616 wrote: | | what i take issue with is the baseless claim of evolution of man. there really isn't the scientific evidence to support that theory. |
What about all the fossils that have been found of ancestors of humans? Are they placed there by the devil?
| Quote: | | By trying to correct past mistakes by travelling time, we could make an even bigger mistake but you can argue that u ll again travel time to correct it but why bother, History has proved that nature can correct its mistakes |
i mean the worst thing which happen in the past i agree there are many good things happen in the past which we enjoy but we also seen many bad evil has happen in the past
i think we should discover history...Because history teachs a lot of things and if you are a Turk,English,French etc...you can proud of your past...And if we know where we lived we could recognize where we will live...Thanks for this topic...
I think the past is an important item to discover it can help us plan out our future and those that are afraid of the past or deny reality are only hurting themselves and their communities.
| Bondings wrote: | | dfreeman616 wrote: | | what i take issue with is the baseless claim of evolution of man. there really isn't the scientific evidence to support that theory. |
What about all the fossils that have been found of ancestors of humans? Are they placed there by the devil? |
that connection is purily theoretical. there may be similarities, but that doesn't mean they're our ancestors.
| dfreeman616 wrote: | | that connection is purily theoretical. there may be similarities, but that doesn't mean they're our ancestors. |
If that is true, then every x years a complete new, smarter and closer-related-to-us human race must have been formed with the final result us.
And it's not just for humans, it's the same for all animals.
that's still going from the assumption that evolution is true in that we have non 'human' ancestors. circular logic. there's not the conclussive evidence to support that. similarily, i don't have conclusive evidence to refute because science can only do so much. as humans, we have a certain degree of subjectivity no matter how objective we try to be. two people can look at the exact same raw data and come to differant conclusions, and there may be equally compelling arguments on either side. that's the case here. we could keep going back and forth like this, but the points you're bring up are not conclusive enough, nor are mine. i think this is a case where we may have to agree to disagree.
Some of our "amnesia" was planned to happen for a good reason. We could be overwhelmed with our past to a point that we would not want to act for the construction of a future. Part of it, however, is harmless to know about. It is there to show us how much we evolved and works as an inspiration to carry on.
The fact is that the soul is wise. When the time is right, the misteries will be revealed.
We became a living human and theres a reason for everything that happens in your life, whethere based on the good,bad, or the uggly life situations
| Lennon wrote: | | Theoretically proven in culture dishes, but no emperical evidence of half-man, half-monkey exists. This has baffled evolutionists. |
No it hasn't. The only people who profess bafflement are the creationist lobby. The process of fossil production isn't a nice ordered regular process; nature doen'y say "Oooh, look, it's a quarter to the millenium, time to lay down another set of fossils.". And also, there is no reason why a being that is exactly half-and-half needs to exist: the evolution of the body may have happened after the evolution of intelligence and intelligence is manifest in bahaviour for which there can be no primary evidence in the fossil record (there could be secondary evidence such as tools).
Finally, | mephisto73 wrote: | | Ehm, that "culture dishes" would be empiric proof. |
Absolutely. And not just "culture dishes". Ever wondered how the new avian flu virus came into being?
I think humans have adapted not evolved.
If we evolved then why are there still apes, chimp, oranutangs, etc. Why are there dogs and cats? there are no left overs from human evolution.
I think humans have survived because of their adaptability annd their opposable thumb. humans can adapt to climate changes, move from a scandanavian country to sub-saharan africa or arabian countries and the humna body adapts, it does not evolve. Humans have adapted to the changes in technology, children know more about technology than their parents do. This is because they are exposed to it at a much earlier age. This is adaption not evolution.
Where we come from is not the fear, it's where we will be ending up that scares most people.
| springbok wrote: | I think humans have adapted not evolved.
If we evolved then why are there still apes, chimp, oranutangs, etc. Why are there dogs and cats? there are no left overs from human evolution.
|
Why wouldn't there be those animals if evolution is true? I keep seeing statemnets like that and wondering what the hell is being taught in schools these days. Why do people keep assuming that evolution means man evolved from apes? How many times do you have to be told that evolution proposes that man and other primates have common ancestors, not that man evolved from apes. Speciation (the process of the creation of new species by genetic mutation) occurs slowly, allowing random mutations that favorably affect population growth to become the more dominant trait, eventually adding up to enough changes to be considered a new species.
In any species, a number of mutations could have benefit and so you could wind up with a species diverging into 2 or more species. That is why there are still apes, monkeys, etc.
Please, guys, there is nothing wrong with believing in creationism and not evolution, but if you are going to publicly state that one is wrong, at least know the basics of it.
| HoboPelican wrote: | | Please, guys, there is nothing wrong with believing in creationism and not evolution, but if you are going to publicly state that one is wrong, at least know the basics of it. |
The basics of it is that evolution is a theory and creationism is a belief, there is no concrete evidence for either. Evolutionists still cannot provide the "missing link" and evolutionist base theirs in books, folklore, myth, etc.
The fundamentals of evolution is that science requires proof and specifics. Absolute truth cannot be provided as to why man evolved differently to ape from the same primal being, common ancestor ar what you will. People will argue to the death that evolution occured and that creation is a myth.
Creationism on the otherhand is based on faith in a belief that there is a superior being, whomever your choice is, and he/she/it/they created the heavens, the earth and everything in it. People will and have fought to the death for their beliefs and will continue to do so.
You are right there is nothing wrong with believing in creationism and not evolution but the it is all the same vice versa. When somene gets on their soap box let them have their 5 minutes without throwing rotten vegies at them. And once they are done rather say I am happy that you believe in something than roam aimlessly throughout life.
| springbok wrote: | | The basics of it is that evolution is a theory and creationism is a belief, there is no concrete evidence for either. |
There is lots of evidence for evolution. You are, I think, making the assumption that the word "theory" means it's just an idea.
A scientific theory is something which offers methods of proving or disproving it: evolution does this. Evolution says that, through the mechism of natural selection, new species come into existence as a result of pressure from their environment. Does this happen? Oh golly yes. There are thousands of examples in the fossil record (trilobites, for example) and in the observations of naturalists in the last 150 years (consider the evolution of some moths in Great Britain as a result of the environmental pressure of the industriual revolution).
Theories stay around because there's lots of evidence to support them, otherwise they get forgotten.
The only evidence I have come across for creationism is that entirely negative: evolution can't explain something so creationsim must be true.
This is not a proper debate of two equally valid arguments, theories or ideas (which, for example, the debate between the proponents of the Big Bang versus the proponents of the Steady State Universe was). This is a case of religious zealots wishing to impose their ideas on people. I don't wish to impose evolution on anyone. I just ask them to look at the evidence and understand the methodology. If you baulk at the methodology then I there is nothing left to say, there is nothing to debate. If you accept the methodology, I can't see how you can escape the conclusion that evolution is a fact.
| woja wrote: | | consider the evolution of some moths in Great Britain as a result of the environmental pressure of the industriual revolution |
that can be explained apart from evolution in the sense of any kind of mutation or major change, as some may promote. as i reall, what happened in this case is lighter colored moths became less observed in proportion to darker colored moths. if this is a genetic trait of the months (like eye color in humans), then the dark ones could survive because they could blend better in the dark from soot, while the lighter ones became easier pray. that fits the idea of 'survival of the fittest,' but does not suggest anything as to if creationism or evolution is a better explaination of the orgin of life.
| dfreeman616 wrote: | | woja wrote: | | consider the evolution of some moths in Great Britain as a result of the environmental pressure of the industriual revolution |
that can be explained apart from evolution in the sense of any kind of mutation or major change, as some may promote. as i reall, what happened in this case is lighter colored moths became less observed in proportion to darker colored moths. if this is a genetic trait of the months (like eye color in humans), then the dark ones could survive because they could blend better in the dark from soot, while the lighter ones became easier pray. that fits the idea of 'survival of the fittest,' but does not suggest anything as to if creationism or evolution is a better explaination of the orgin of life. |
I highly doubt there is only one gene for complex changes as this one. But I'm not a biologist so I can't confirm it for sure.
Also, I always thought this was also rather an argument for natural selection and only partly for evolution itself. Mutations happen with every new generation and also in your own body. And because of all those mutations, the whole group of the organism changes. Natural selection and other mechanism just favour some characteristics, but not necessarily the 'best' ones.
My school's spring philosophy seminar is pointed right at this topic. I kinda think these guys should stick to the intanglible... but I really am looking forward to it. These prof's usually go at it really hard! (and then they get drunk and beat the hell outta eachoter -- interesting buncH!)
Event Information
Title: Annual Philosophy Symposium - "Evolution and Design: Conflicting Views of the Universe"
Date:
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Time: 9 a.m.
Calendar: Cultural Events
Contact: culturalevents
Complete Description:
The 26th annual symposium features world renowned Darwinist,
Dr. Michael Ruse, author of Darwin and Design:
Does Evolution Have a Purpose and eminent philosopher,
Dr. Patrick Byrne, whose recent book is The Dialogue
between Science and Religion: What We Have Learned
from One Another.
Henson Hall, #243
Admission free and the public is invited
For information call 410-677-5070
|
