Yesterday's Evolution was Wrong

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Took a while for God to get his genetically perfect clone to be perfect.

"Took a while?" Looks like he's still working on that if you ask me!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years

Seems perfectly natural, OP, what is your complaint? Certainly you do not object to our better understanding, that would be Asinine.

What the OP objects to is that a theory based on less evidence can be refined based on more evidence.

In other words, the OP doesn't like the scientific method. He just wants the final, unalterable truth.

What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"

Just admit you don't know everything and can't know everything and I wouldn't be on their case so much.

Is that so hard to grasp.

Not only is it hard to grasp it is absurd. Evolutionists are busy doing science and don't, I would say, generally speaking, give a hoot what you think. They don't have time, like I do, to waste their time on you. The arrogance that you see is just a reflection of people just like you, who can't stand people who believe in the absurd. The only real debate is who is really the most absurd. You are doubtlessly a religious quack and these folk who seem so arrogant put their faith in science. You are having, with them, a religious debate. Science is better than religion, no religion is better.

The science faithful hate your kind because you are a threat. You, in the throws of your blind faith, would legislate evolution out of the schools and cripple scientific progress which has served so well to improve the lot of so many people and, of course, bring them closer to extinction, or so it would seem.

You, on the other hand, in your delusional state, imagine you are fighting for God. He doesn't need your help and you give Him a bad name because He showed you evolution in the rocks he creates. The world is God's real book, not the Bible and you misreading of it.

You hold in contempt those who are arrogantly sure of their science because you yourself have the same arrogance and are arrogantly offended by theirs. You might notice that to be a real Christian requires humility. A humble person says, gee, maybe my religion or my science is wrong.

No science is supposed to be a humble pursuit too, one in which facts and data do the talking, not the ego of the scientist. That won't hold true for every scientist or for every theory. Science is biased in favor of what it already knows and resists any change from the norm. A scientist says, OK prove you are right and let others look at and check your data. So slowly science evolves, as I told you before.

You are all emotionally wrapped up in your hostility to science and therefore, I think, blind to how it works. Science is always adapting to new data. New data doesn't make fools out of folk who trust in data to change their minds. They don't change their minds about the reasonableness of using data. They remain faithful to the scientific method as they alter their theories. The underlying principles are unaffected by changing ideas. The way of looking at the world, the scientific method doesn't change but the view does.

Scientists are not right. They are engaged in a process to determine what ideas best fit with their data. It is not their ideas that is sacred to them, despite the fact that there are scientists who become passionately attached to their theories, it is the notion that truth is best know that fits with the best data and has been tested.

Again, science is a way of discovering truth about the world. The method is fixed but the data and theories are always changing. Some even thing the theories are improving.

And if you are not trying to evolve your understanding of your own religion you will forever be stuck what you were taught as the final word in everything. But what you were taught is only an accident of such things as who your parents are, where and when you were born, etc. You can be in this life, either static or dynamic.

 

[Moonbeam]

.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years

Seems perfectly natural, OP, what is your complaint? Certainly you do not object to our better understanding, that would be Asinine.

What the OP objects to is that a theory based on less evidence can be refined based on more evidence.

In other words, the OP doesn't like the scientific method. He just wants the final, unalterable truth.

What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"

Just admit you don't know everything and can't know everything and I wouldn't be on their case so much.

Is that so hard to grasp.

Not only is it hard to grasp it is absurd. Evolutionists are busy doing science and don't, I would say, generally speaking, give a hoot what you think. They don't have time, like I do, to waste their time on you. The arrogance that you see is just a reflection of people just like you, who can't stand people who believe in the absurd. The only real debate is who is really the most absurd. You are doubtlessly a religious quack and these folk who seem so arrogant put their faith in science. You are having, with them, a religious debate. Science is better than religion, no religion is better.

The science faithful hate your kind because you are a threat. You, in the throws of your blind faith, would legislate evolution out of the schools and cripple scientific progress which has served so well to improve the lot of so many people and, of course, bring them closer to extinction, or so it would seem.

You, on the other hand, in your delusional state, imagine you are fighting for God. He doesn't need your help and you give Him a bad name because He showed you evolution in the rocks he creates. The world is God's real book, not the Bible and you misreading of it.

You hold in contempt those who are arrogantly sure of their science because you yourself have the same arrogance and are arrogantly offended by theirs. You might notice that to be a real Christian requires humility. A humble person says, gee, maybe my religion or my science is wrong.

No science is supposed to be a humble pursuit too, one in which facts and data do the talking, not the ego of the scientist. That won't hold true for every scientist or for every theory. Science is biased in favor of what it already knows and resists any change from the norm. A scientist says, OK prove you are right and let others look at and check your data. So slowly science evolves, as I told you before.

You are all emotionally wrapped up in your hostility to science and therefore, I think, blind to how it works. Science is always adapting to new data. New data doesn't make fools out of folk who trust in data to change their minds. They don't change their minds about the reasonableness of using data. They remain faithful to the scientific method as they alter their theories. The underlying principles are unaffected by changing ideas. The way of looking at the world, the scientific method doesn't change but the view does.

Scientists are not right. They are engaged in a process to determine what ideas best fit with their data. It is not their ideas that is sacred to them, despite the fact that there are scientists who become passionately attached to their theories, it is the notion that truth is best know that fits with the best data and has been tested.

Again, science is a way of discovering truth about the world. The method is fixed but the data and theories are always changing. Some even thing the theories are improving.

And if you are not trying to evolve your understanding of your own religion you will forever be stuck what you were taught as the final word in everything. But what you were taught is only an accident of such things as who your parents are, where and when you were born, etc. You can be in this life, either static or dynamic.

Cliffs:

Science is a religion.
Scientists are philosophers seeking truth / not fact.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years

Seems perfectly natural, OP, what is your complaint? Certainly you do not object to our better understanding, that would be Asinine.

What the OP objects to is that a theory based on less evidence can be refined based on more evidence.

In other words, the OP doesn't like the scientific method. He just wants the final, unalterable truth.

What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"

Just admit you don't know everything and can't know everything and I wouldn't be on their case so much.

Is that so hard to grasp.

I'm not aware of any dedicated scientist - evolutionary biologist or otherwise - or anyone else familiar with the scientific method who claims that science "knows everything." You are inventing an animal that doesn't exist.

In a nutshell, the position of science is: Our knowledge is incomplete - better in some areas than in others - and we are continually learning more and more.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

OP, thanks for giving me an idea for a critical thinking exercise in the human evolution class I teach. That taxpayers like you pay me to teach.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"

You clearly don't understand why its not a big deal. Its not a big deal because it is totally irrelevant to the "core" theory of evolution. I'll quote what I said previously

There has never been a consensus on the exact path from primate to human. You are acting like this discovery flies in the face of an established scientific theory. It doesn't. This discovery is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs (ex: natural selection, mutations, etc...). The particular of evolution of a specific species is a totally different topic.

EDIT: Maybe this will make it clearer: the history of evolution on earth is independent from the process of evolution

 

[manowar821]

Do you even understand the definition of the word "Theory"?

I know it's difficult, but I have FAITH in you. That's the only faith I have, the faith that people can GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR ASSES AND F-ING THINK.

Try it for once. <3

 

[homercles337]

Wow, 6 pages and the religious nut jobs still dont "get it"? This should be a sticky to show that talking evolution to a scientifically illiterate creationist is pointless.

 

[smack Down]

Science is not pure and wholesome and its definately not infallable.

Complain that science is not infallable just shows how clueless you are. Science by definition is falsifiable. If you can't invent a test to prove a theory wrong then that theory is worthless.

 

[Caveman]

Evolution is the fairytale, but the stories about the benevolent all powerful yet invisible man in the sky who passively watches the unspeakable degradations enacted daily in his name on countless innocents is real.

I thought everyone wants free moral agency? Can't have your cake and eat it too... Sorry. Each one of us is a contributor to the state of the world - even you.

The most thorough way to learn a lesson is by paying the consequences of it... Unfortunately, it's not the most painless way and yet, each and every human being decides that path.

Someday all will know and understand that there is a better way...

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
whew, now I can go back to believing in that mystical being in the sky that provides no evidence of his existence yet requires everyone to have faith that he is there or go to hell. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Wow, I don't know which is more loony. The OP's understanding of evolution, or your understanding of religion.

The OP's understanding of evolution.

After reading some of the following posts, I don't think it's that simple.

I think DangerAardvark and JohnOfSheffield have an understanding of religion that is just as fucked up as the Religious Right whackos that elected Bush. They may be looking in different directions, but they're standing on the same mountain.

Know what's good about standing on a mountain? There's a great view from up here! Stop apologizing for religion.

I respect religious views no more than I would any other baseless opinion. That's all. You can spin that into "fundamentalism" or "arrogance" all you want. But that's all it is: spin.

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What evolutionary theory does the OP subscribe to?

Earth is one big alien zoo

This is an interesting theory. What do you base this on if you really believe this theory?

If you don't really believe in this alien theory then what theory do you believe in or do you believe we are just here and nobody really knows why?

Originally posted by: Drift3r
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

This thread is full of them.

Be careful with this link. The first time I clicked it I had a popup browser window (I have Google popup blocker) and my NAV caught the following:

Scan type: Realtime Protection Scan
Event: Virus Found!
Virus name: Downloader
File: C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\OHWFGZ8F\usa01[1].htm
Location: C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\OHWFGZ8F
Computer:
User:
Action taken: Clean failed : Quarantine failed : Access denied
Date found: Thu Aug 09 22:52:08 2007

 

[her209]

If I steal a base in a game of baseball, did I commit a sin?

 

[winr]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years

Seems perfectly natural, OP, what is your complaint? Certainly you do not object to our better understanding, that would be Asinine.

What the OP objects to is that a theory based on less evidence can be refined based on more evidence.

In other words, the OP doesn't like the scientific method. He just wants the final, unalterable truth.

What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"

Just admit you don't know everything and can't know everything and I wouldn't be on their case so much.

Is that so hard to grasp.

What you are saying is that evolutionists are arrogant and close minded ??

What you dont see is that creationists do the same thing.

A lot of people on both sides are not open to discussion.

I read somewhere a quote:
"If you you already have your mind made up you are wasting your time going to a meeting to discuss different views"

How do People decide what to believe ??

What they perceive as evidence??

How they want it to turn out ??

What were they taught growing up ??

Another thing....using words like "Stupid", "Ignorant" and saying things like " I cant believe how dumb someone could be to believe such things" only serves to fan the flames of anger and resentment.

I myself have no idea where we came from, I was raised a Christian and was totally convinced about God and all until I was older and saw the lies and hypocritical stuff in my Church.

I have also seen the same crap in Science and also my Government and the Teachers in School.

So...stop the name calling and bashing and prove your point of view instead of using logic like Politicians use.

I read all the posts with an open mind, I am soaking up everything I can, I have always been curious and will change my mind if I see that I have been wrong about something.

Try to get along and exchange ideas if you can. :sun:

 

[The Lurker]

So let me get this straight... The findings indicate that as we evolved, there have been multiple branches going on at the same time, and some didn't succeed? So essentially, if we had a "creator", he messed up a lot? Doesn't that mean that, if god created everything as it is (and evolution doesn't exist), he was an idiot and messed up a lot? I sure hope thats not what the religious fanatics are implying.

Humor aside, why can't evolution and religion co-exist? What if god set up evolution as a mechanism? It seems like people who say science is opposed to religion are just trying to start a war.

 

[DrPizza]

Wow, I considered locking this as a repost, or rather using that as a valid excuse. I found it incredibly painful to find out how little one person knows about the theory of evolution, yet that person believes that this new discovery even comes remotely close to proving the theory of evolution wrong.

Unfortunately, OP, if anything, this strengthens our understanding of evolution of humans. While you're running around, claiming that God is some all powerful practical joker ("hahahaha! Now I put two different fossils near each other. That'll really test their faith") those of us who are able to employ common sense are gaining a better grasp of just where we came from.

This new discovery does absolutely NOTHING to discredit the theory of evolution (which is now regarded as fact.) It merely demonstrates that we don't know every step along the evolutionary path for all species. Of course, the anti-evolutionists, for whatever reason, seem to feel that since scientists don't know what every step is, and that there are a few holes here and there in their knowledge, that their theory is wrong. That's no different however, than telling me that since I can't explain every step in how my automobile works that it must have been created by God instead of Chrysler.

 

[DrPizza]

1. The lurker, they can coexist. The Catholics have believed in evolution since the 1960's.


2. GoPackGo: This issue is going to be discussed on National Public Radio's Science Friday program. check out the itinerary for the show
Might I suggest you call in to the show and discuss your opinions with them? It's not enough to see you look foolish in this forum, I think it's better when people with as little knowledge and understanding of evolution try to make points in front of a national audience and are quickly recognized by the masses as fools.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wow, I considered locking this as a repost, or rather using that as a valid excuse. I found it incredibly painful to find out how little one person knows about the theory of evolution, yet that person believes that this new discovery even comes remotely close to proving the theory of evolution wrong.

Unfortunately, OP, if anything, this strengthens our understanding of evolution of humans. While you're running around, claiming that God is some all powerful practical joker ("hahahaha! Now I put two different fossils near each other. That'll really test their faith") those of us who are able to employ common sense are gaining a better grasp of just where we came from.

This new discovery does absolutely NOTHING to discredit the theory of evolution (which is now regarded as fact.) It merely demonstrates that we don't know every step along the evolutionary path for all species. Of course, the anti-evolutionists, for whatever reason, seem to feel that since scientists don't know what every step is, and that there are a few holes here and there in their knowledge, that their theory is wrong. That's no different however, than telling me that since I can't explain every step in how my automobile works that it must have been created by God instead of Chrysler.

You know...you should know better then to troll into this thread.

First...I have never said it was God playing a joke.
Second...I feel the theory in its present form is wrong due the new evidence...I did not say "NO EVOLUTION"
Third... Your Chrysler analogy is inaccurate in the sense because someone at Chrysler knows how that whole car works, part by part. No one on this planet knows the complete path of the origin of the species.
Fourth...when the "evolutionists" get enflamed whenever anyone questions their science they prove that they are just as big of zealots as the Ultra-Right Wing.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: her209
If I steal a base in a game of baseball, did I commit a sin?

Yes...all baseball players go to hell.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years

Seems perfectly natural, OP, what is your complaint? Certainly you do not object to our better understanding, that would be Asinine.

What the OP objects to is that a theory based on less evidence can be refined based on more evidence.

In other words, the OP doesn't like the scientific method. He just wants the final, unalterable truth.

What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"

Just admit you don't know everything and can't know everything and I wouldn't be on their case so much.

Is that so hard to grasp.

I'm not aware of any dedicated scientist - evolutionary biologist or otherwise - or anyone else familiar with the scientific method who claims that science "knows everything." You are inventing an animal that doesn't exist.

In a nutshell, the position of science is: Our knowledge is incomplete - better in some areas than in others - and we are continually learning more and more.

Maybe its just some of the posters in this forum.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Second...I feel the theory in its present form is wrong due the new evidence...I did not say "NO EVOLUTION"

The simplistic 'straight line' theory of human evolution was abandoned by paleoanthropology 40 years ago. I hate to break it to you, but research science is rarely (if ever) portrayed correctly in the mainstream media.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

For the 8 millionth time, evolution does not speak to the origin of life. Not only that, but evolution does not make any claim to the fact that manual direction of increasing complexity of creatures would be impossible, it merely speaks for the vehicle that life on earth has apparently used.

It is a logical fallacy to say that because mankind might someday create and alter life that all life must therefore have been 'created' and directed as well. And finally, evolution is not random. It is the opposite of random. It is one of the more highly directed and ruthless natural forces I can think of.

Its amazing how quickly "evolutionists" are to jump off the whole "origin of life" bandwagon.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that evolution has ever made a claim to the origins of life? Do you even know what the theory of evolution says?

This might explain your difficulty in grasping what everyone in this thread is trying to tell you.

good posts, eskimposy.

but to clarify: evolution is an ordered system--yes, but one that depends on random mutation, with an undetermined (even non-existent) "goal." so it isn't the opposite of random.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic
Threads like this are why I keep telling people that internet message boards are better than any TV sit-com.

:thumbsup:

yet...I can't stay out of them. damn it all!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"

Just admit you don't know everything and can't know everything and I wouldn't be on their case so much.

Is that so hard to grasp.

But the whole point here is that it isn't a big deal, because these fossils do nothing to refute the fundamental premise of evolution... which is what you were trying to claim earlier.

You are trying to retreat now from your positions earlier in the thread, because you have been jumped all over by everyone. Face it, you saw something that fit in well with your world view and you thought you had something to bash the evolution crowd with. You were wrong, and you got a bloody nose. You can either learn from this mistake, or you can just pretend it never happened and try and let this thread fall off the front page.

I'm guessing you'll do the latter.

based on every previous evolution thread in these forums...um, no.