Someone always brings this up in the evolution threads, but I have yet to see ANYONE behave this way. Pretty much everyone seems to support evolution because they think the available scientific evidence supports those ideas. They don't treat science as infallible, but when someone makes a convincing scientific argument, they are convinced. If someone made a better scientific argument, I'm confident that most evolution supporters would switch their opinion. But here's the thing, and there is really no getting around it, NOBODY HAS. Instead, you get well reasoned scientific argument on one side and folks like you and Butterbean calling people names on the other.
Personally, I think the reason you guys always fall back on this ridiculous straw man is that you know people arguing against evolution have no scientific basis for their position, and they are never going to find one. This was OK back in the day when religion trumped science, but now that the tables are turned, your only hope is to argue that science ISN'T science, that it's more like an even worse form of religious faith. Of course there isn't any more evidence for THIS position either, but maybe by repeating it enough you'll convince someone.
Well if you all believe you came from apes then so be it. Thats not my belief and never will be. Just one question though. If we all came from apes then why are there still apes around? Wouldn't evolution have transformed the remaining apes into humans by now? So silly.
No, this is a basic misunderstanding of evolution. It's not like apes suddenly turned into humans one day, we share a common ancestor.
You're free to believe whatever you want, but the evidence for evolution is massive and overwhelming.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
I'll ask a simpler question - why aren't all humans the same color? The answer is because as we spread out across the globe, we intermingled continuously with those near us. Genetic mutations eventually caused the variations we see in humanity today.
Apes still exist because we share a common ancestor with them. When the first proto-humans emerged, they didn't start having sex with all the apes and producing more proto-humans. They had sex and reproduced with a small group of apes / proto-humans which took on increasingly divergent characteristics from the general ape population.
Also, I hate to say it again, but evolution is not a belief, it's a fact. Please, please go read a few good books or articles on how we evolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Finally, you say evolution is "so silly." I find the idea that God created us and that we suddenly appeared somewhere in Africa out of nowhere to be even sillier. Please tell me, were apes just wandering around with the lions and tigers and then, ala Terminator 2, some huge electrical cloud appeared and *bam* humans showed up? IF that were the case, then why do we have overwhelming evidence of proto-humans (Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc)? Did God put those fossils there to test our faith?
lets make that simpler?
Just one question if we all came from our parents who come are parents are still around? Shouldn't they have turned into children by now? (Note I'm ignoring the fact that we really didn't come from apes but have a common ancestor.)
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
I've often thought that it is a good idea to have a critical thinking class on science. Look at what is currently believed to be fact, and then look at the dogma and try to pick it apart. Does it really stand up to scrutiny? Can flaws be found? It's a good idea to be skeptical about even the most established principles and to learn why a thing is valid, not because your text book says so.
That said, this bill does not serve that purpose. It's another attempt to slip something in as fact that has no basis for that claim. Religion aside, putting something forward, such as ID just won't work.
For sake of discussion, assume that some version of ID is correct, there is a God who designed the universe to become what it is as part of some plan.
Let's also assume that God directed events to be as they are.
Ok, fine. Now how do you go about proving it? It becomes a matter of faith, since it's a completely untestable event. Evolution may explain a mechanism by which a plan exists, but that is unprovable. It may have been that at certain times God directly intervened and created a living creature. That to is unprovable. It is totally outside of science's ability to explain or deal with.
So what's left? That which can be observed. To teach science means teaching the nuts and bolts of observable facts. Those observations support evolution. By all means attempt to pick it apart scientifically, but to insist that ID becomes part of a science class when there is no science isn't rational.
That said, this bill does not serve that purpose. It's another attempt to slip something in as fact that has no basis for that claim. Religion aside, putting something forward, such as ID just won't work.
For sake of discussion, assume that some version of ID is correct, there is a God who designed the universe to become what it is as part of some plan.
Let's also assume that God directed events to be as they are.
Ok, fine. Now how do you go about proving it? It becomes a matter of faith, since it's a completely untestable event. Evolution may explain a mechanism by which a plan exists, but that is unprovable. It may have been that at certain times God directly intervened and created a living creature. That to is unprovable. It is totally outside of science's ability to explain or deal with.
So what's left? That which can be observed. To teach science means teaching the nuts and bolts of observable facts. Those observations support evolution. By all means attempt to pick it apart scientifically, but to insist that ID becomes part of a science class when there is no science isn't rational.
When a small population is isolated from a larger population, say early apes , is exposed to differing conditions, say a drying climate, and genetically isolated from the main population, maybe no longer live in deep forest, adaptions that favor life in that dryer world take place. These give rise to new genetic potentials like walking on two feet, which free up hands for tool making, which propel an evolution of the brain. Meanwhile apes in the forest are also evolving, experiencing genetic mutation, but none of the changes that are beneficial for life on the plains are favored and those that favor the static forest life persist. Thus one branch of a tree may experience tremendous morphological change via adaption and another branch preserve what was original. The genetic drift between modern apes, humans, and our ancient ancestors are identical, but the morphological changes can be immense.
I think the batteries in my sarcasm detector are out of juice, but I'll bite anyways because it's a good question. Well, not the ape part, that's just silly. But overall, I DON'T "believe" in evolution. I've looked at the evidence and listened to the folks who have studied the question and I agree with their theory. "Belief" is for people who failed science. Don't get me wrong, it's fine when the only answer to a question can come from belief, but when the scientific alternative exists, you'd have to be crazy not to take it.
Right here.
This is the exact reason why many religious folks object so strongly to the theory of evolution. It's as if they cannot fathom the fact that humans and animals share a common ancestor (or in this particular ignorant view, that we CAME from apes).
But I digress, there's something about humans being highly evolved animals that does not jive with Christianity. Perhaps because it clashes with their belief that we are of divine origin ... something special ... different from animals. I guess it must really burn your world view pretty harshly to realize we're essentially monkeys with big brains. Well, at least some of us anyway.
:laugh:
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Well, ultimately belief is all anyone has. It's the reason for the belief that matters, and if what one claims can be backed up.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
PC Surgeon
Following the crackpot reasoning of your understanding of evolution, there would always only be one species of life on the planet, each new one replacing the last one.
Now that's silly.
Following the crackpot reasoning of your understanding of evolution, there would always only be one species of life on the planet, each new one replacing the last one.
Now that's silly.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Its ok, there is historical precedence for this. A lot of people clung to the flat earth theory after being shown/taught overwhelming proof that it the Earth was not flat.
Its a radical change of "thought". A lot of religious people I know rationalize that only God could have created something as perfect as evolution. At some point I am relatively sure you will come around as well. You can only ignore hard evidence for so long and the amount of evidence is growing all the time.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Text
PC Surgeon's confusion doesn't show a need for a radical change of thought, but of being poorly educated about evolution theory. Humans are not descended from apes, we share common ancestors. At some point in the distant past, our ancestors split off and evolved in different directions, one direction becoming humans, the other into modern ape species.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,010
- 1
- 0
It's the 21st century. Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. It's not radical, some people are just ignorant.
People who believe in ID think they know more than you. It's pointless to call people ignorant. Argue the data. The simple fact as I see it is that science supports the theory of evolution and fundies support ID. ID is not a science because it predicts nothing, is scientifically useless, and is not amenable to scientific review. It's for a quackpot minority who are playing games. Evolution is science approved. Nut cases disagree. Science is scientific consensus. ID is something about which only nut cases agree.
The questioning of evolution can take place only among scientists. Nut cases needn't apply.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Of course one can ask another question, why do some (not all) people believe science can answer all questions?
Your preaching to the choir bud. However, I know quite a few people that are very much like PC Surgeon when it comes to evolution. They have been taught that man was made in God's image. The fact that we evolved from "lesser" beings is very different then what they where taught to believe.
Some Christians I know rationalize it in a way that allows for both God/the Bible and evolution to coexist. Others simply dismiss it outright even when presented with a ton of evidence. They think its downright insulting that some lesser creature like an ape had anything to do with creating them. They were created in God's image!!
This isn't the first time that religion and science have clashed and it probably won't be the last time. Fortunately, science always wins in the long run. Just like the geocentric model and flat earth, it will reach a point that the naysayers will convert in light of even more evidence/social acceptance or will simply be ignored (like someone religiously arguing 2+2=5).
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
If religion can't answer the question then the answer doesn't matter. That's the converse.
Back not quite a century ago, it was determined that there are truths which cannot be proven. That doesn't make them less true, nor does it make others avert their eyes. I'll opt for a larger world.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter