Evolution Explained

[ashlie]

Ok so there is no create a new thread button anywhere. I have a question and I can't create a thread..

[Nam]

Ok so there is no create a new thread button anywhere. I have a question and I can't create a thread..

You have to make three, I think, posts before creating a topic.

-Nam

[ashlie]

Ok here is 2

[thissiteiscrazy]

"Cynic" was what the Roman soldiers called their guard dogs. They were highly aggressive and distrustful of anything not familiar. New ideas are usually unfamiliar.

[One Above All]

"Cynic" was what the Roman soldiers called their guard dogs. They were highly aggressive and distrustful of anything not familiar. New ideas are usually unfamiliar.

So you're saying you don't believe in the verifiable/verified and undeniable fact of evolution because it was "recently" proven? I'd buy that. Religion is as old as written history, and I've said at least two times here that theists are generally slower when it comes to accepting new facts.

[thissiteiscrazy]

"Cynic" was what the Roman soldiers called their guard dogs. They were highly aggressive and distrustful of anything not familiar. New ideas are usually unfamiliar.

So you're saying you don't believe in the verifiable/verified and undeniable fact of evolution because it was "recently" proven? I'd buy that. Religion is as old as written history, and I've said at least two times here that theists are generally slower when it comes to accepting new facts.

"Cynic" was what the Roman soldiers called their guard dogs. They were highly aggressive and distrustful of anything not familiar. New ideas are usually unfamiliar.

So you're saying you don't believe in the verifiable/verified and undeniable fact of evolution because it was "recently" proven? I'd buy that. Religion is as old as written history, and I've said at least two times here that theists are generally slower when it comes to accepting new facts.

No I'm just saying that calling yourself "cynic" in a proud manner is a mistake. It makes you just as unaccepting as the religious zealots.

[thissiteiscrazy]

Creationists usually cling tightly to the Bible literally because of they are afraid of the very immense and diverse amount of ideas that there are out there. Who says that it was not God's intention to slowly and deliberately create the universe and the planet over billions of years. They claim to be humble before God but then they claim they know God's purpose and intention based on a book written thousands of years ago by lesser evolved humans.

[One Above All]

No I'm just saying that calling yourself "cynic" in a proud manner is a mistake. It makes you just as unaccepting as the religious zealots.

a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.

Well, I guess that makes me a cynic. Fancy that.[1]

Creationists usually cling tightly to the Bible literally because of they are afraid of the very immense and diverse amount of ideas that there are out there. Who says that it was not God's intention to slowly and deliberately create the universe and the planet over billions of years. They claim to be humble before God but then they claim they know God's purpose and intention based on a book written thousands of years ago by lesser evolved humans.

And you claim to know Allah based on... What again?

1.	Seriously. I am surprised by this.

[shnozzola]

Creationists usually cling tightly to the Bible literally because of they are afraid of the very immense and diverse amount of ideas that there are out there. Who says that it was not God's intention to slowly and deliberately create the universe and the planet over billions of years. They claim to be humble before God but then they claim they know God's purpose and intention based on a book written thousands of years ago by lesser evolved humans.

Welcome to the site thissiteiscrazy. The site may not be as crazy as you think.   I am glad you look at evolution as possibly god's slow intention.  Many people do not.   I certainly don't know god's intention, or if a god even exists.  I lean toward non-existence. 

   And, that gets us into your SPAG questions in another thread.  SPAG is Self Projection As God - meaning, religious people pick and choose what they follow from their books.  I was guilty of it when I stumbled onto this site.  For example, some followers of Judaism would believe that not eating pork is hogwash.    Some christians would believe that the resurrection may not have happened, or that Jesus is not really coming back, or that Noah's ark or Jonah and the whale are fables.  That is why there are some 43,000 denominations.  Just look at the Reformation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

People were killed who believed differently.  Not any different than today, huh?  That is the argument on this website - atheists are safe from theists here, and can present arguments that will hopefully cause "believers" enough doubt to stop killing over beliefs.  Sort of a Rodney King "can't we all just get along" sentiment.  9/11 is what pushed me into a more aggressive position.  Even now I would argue that Islam's idea of 72 virgins after martyrdom says more about Muslim men's sexism than it does about truth.

Like I said - welcome.  If you have an open mind, hopefully you won't kill us atheists to spread your gospel of love.

edit -spelling

[Hatter23]

"Cynic" was what the Roman soldiers called their guard dogs. They were highly aggressive and distrustful of anything not familiar. New ideas are usually unfamiliar.

Well the concept of "pay attention to evidence not superstition" is newer than listening to whatever tales of Gods, magic, and monsters popular in your culture as fact. None the less, newness or oldness is not relevant. Separable from completely made up garbage is relevant

[blackscarfgal]

Only one question is still mysterious to me how did very first human got created on this earth?

[One Above All]

Only one question is still mysterious to me how did very first human got created on this earth?

You'd need to ask the creationists.

[voodoo child]

Only one question is still mysterious to me how did very first human got created on this earth?

If you think we were magically popped into existence and that sort of answer gives you comfort.
Then you have lost your sense of adventure.

[Jag]

Only one question is still mysterious to me how did very first human got created on this earth?

Humans were not created, they evolved, just like every other living thing on Earth.

[ParkingPlaces]

Only one question is still mysterious to me how did very first human got created on this earth?

The same way as the first worm, the first sparrow, the first elephant. We all slowly evolved, and we're still evolving. If we can keep from killing ourselves, someday someone will ask "Only one question is still mysterious to me how did humans 2.0 get created on earth", because we will continue to evolve, and we will continue to be mystified every time we ignore the evidence.

[Willie]

Consider for a moment this page from a very old book:



It was written roughly 1000 years ago. It's written in English, but the language has changed so much since then that it is hardly even identifiable, much less actually readable, by modern English speakers/readers (excepting those who've specifically studied old English, of course). It has changed so much that Old English and Modern English should really be thought of as separate, distinct, languages, much like comparing modern English to French or German, for example.

Now consider this question:

  Who was the first speaker of modern English?


It's sort of a silly question, isn't it?  Was there some individual person who just started speaking an entirely different language from the one her parents taught her, a language that no one around her could speak or understand? No. Of course not. That's not how languages evolve.

That's also not how species evolve. In both cases, it happens by an accumulation of small changes, such that no generation is incompatible with its immediate ancestors or descendents. So, just as there was no very first speaker of Modern English, there was no very first human.

[fringe]

Evolution can not be proven. Where are the missing links, those being fossils showing any living creature transforming from one to the next. Even one.  They don't exist. To me, it's is considerably easier to believe in God and that He created all of life than it is to believe in evolution. But we believe in faith, not because of science - however, contrary to what you teach, science has not disproved Gods existence. I invite your correction if I am wrong but doesn't the theory of evolution teach that all life came from a single cell organism? You can accept that but not God? If believers in the Holy bible are wrong then we lose nothing. We just die. But if the bible is true, and the saved burn in hell for eternity then I caution you to carefully consider what you are preaching. If you see a painting there must be a painter. See a building there must be a builder. See a creation there must be a creator. There was a beginning. If I am correct in my faith, then I prey "May God bless you and open you heart and eyes to the truth. Amen".

I tend to agree with you that evolution can not be factually proven... but proving it will come. As for god, or your god to be more specific, prove of his non-existance will also come. I am not saying that isn't a power in existance that created everyting, because I do believe there is. I just dont believe its your god of the O.T or Jesus of the N.T or Allah or Buddha or whatever. These gods were created by humans for hhumans in the absence of the true creator. Findiny the true creator will need a lot of knowledge, something we as humans had, but lost because of the serpent called greed. Knowledge is power, anr with it you can move mountains... literally. Proveing evolution is no overnight thing since the process of changing one small strain in the biological makeup of any species takes centuries to complete. We shouldnt  have blind faith to not realise that the creator left his creation to develop independantly. If we place a god at the centre of the developing creation we must face the fact that any and all vile things that happen in his creation, is part of his masterplan.

[jdawg70]

Evolution can not be proven. Where are the missing links, those being fossils showing any living creature transforming from one to the next. Even one.  They don't exist. To me, it's is considerably easier to believe in God and that He created all of life than it is to believe in evolution. But we believe in faith, not because of science - however, contrary to what you teach, science has not disproved Gods existence. I invite your correction if I am wrong but doesn't the theory of evolution teach that all life came from a single cell organism? You can accept that but not God? If believers in the Holy bible are wrong then we lose nothing. We just die. But if the bible is true, and the saved burn in hell for eternity then I caution you to carefully consider what you are preaching. If you see a painting there must be a painter. See a building there must be a builder. See a creation there must be a creator. There was a beginning. If I am correct in my faith, then I prey "May God bless you and open you heart and eyes to the truth. Amen".

I tend to agree with you that evolution can not be factually proven... but proving it will come. As for god, or your god to be more specific, prove of his non-existance will also come. I am not saying that isn't a power in existance that created everyting, because I do believe there is. I just dont believe its your god of the O.T or Jesus of the N.T or Allah or Buddha or whatever. These gods were created by humans for hhumans in the absence of the true creator. Findiny the true creator will need a lot of knowledge, something we as humans had, but lost because of the serpent called greed. Knowledge is power, anr with it you can move mountains... literally. Proveing evolution is no overnight thing since the process of changing one small strain in the biological makeup of any species takes centuries to complete. We shouldnt  have blind faith to not realise that the creator left his creation to develop independantly. If we place a god at the centre of the developing creation we must face the fact that any and all vile things that happen in his creation, is part of his masterplan.

Hiya fringe.  Welcome aboard.

You've necroed an old topic by responding to a very old post.  That's fine, as (if I remember correctly) new users need a minimum number of posts before being able to start a new topic.  However, you're probably not going to promulgate a whole lot of discussion in an old thread.  I suggest you pop into a more recent thread, and then, once you're able to start new topics, perhaps pop into:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,17.0.html

Edit:
Huh.  I just noticed this is a 'sticky post' topic, so perhaps this does not qualify as necroing a thread.  However, I stand by my recommendation of popping into more recent and active threads.

[albeto]

I tend to agree with you that evolution can not be factually proven... but proving it will come. As for god, or your god to be more specific, prove of his non-existance will also come. I am not saying that isn't a power in existance that created everyting, because I do believe there is. I just dont believe its your god of the O.T or Jesus of the N.T or Allah or Buddha or whatever. These gods were created by humans for hhumans in the absence of the true creator. Findiny the true creator will need a lot of knowledge, something we as humans had, but lost because of the serpent called greed. Knowledge is power, anr with it you can move mountains... literally. Proveing evolution is no overnight thing since the process of changing one small strain in the biological makeup of any species takes centuries to complete. We shouldnt  have blind faith to not realise that the creator left his creation to develop independantly. If we place a god at the centre of the developing creation we must face the fact that any and all vile things that happen in his creation, is part of his masterplan.

I find your comment interesting becaue it shows the value of information, and how easily we can assume we are informed. For example, not only has the theory of evolution been confirmed factually true, its reliability and ability to predict constantly confirm its value, it actually explains morals far more accurately, factually, and consistently than this evasive, vague "creator" hypothesis. Which raises the question for me, on what do you base your conclusions of this "creator"?

Does it matter if what you believe is right?

[Graybeard]

I am not saying that isn't a power in existence that created everything, because I do believe there is.

This creates a problem - who created the creator?

I just dont believe its your god of the O.T or Jesus of the N.T or Allah or Buddha or whatever. These gods were created by humans for humans in the absence of the true creator

How would we know the "True Creator" was not invented by man?

Finding the true creator will need a lot of knowledge,

From where will this knowledge come?

something we as humans had, but lost because of the serpent called greed.

Why would greed cause a loss of knowledge? Sorrow, envy, gluttony do not appear to change how much you know[1]. We know things by experience.

1.	You probably know more things as a result.

[jaimehlers]

Why does there need to be an intelligent creator of everything?  As Graybeard pointed out, that begs the question of how said creator came to be.

One of the reasons evolution works so well as an explanation is because it avoids having to posit an intelligent creator being responsible for life, by instead positing an unintelligent optimization process which did the job instead.  It fits the known facts much better than an intelligent creator and avoids the problem of an infinite regression to boot when it comes to complex life.  And while it's true that the theory of evolution doesn't explain anything but how complex life came about, it suggests that looking for similar unintelligent processes will be much more fruitful than looking for a complex intelligent creator.

[nogodsforme]

^^^Yep. Science works. Religion doesn't. It's that simple.

[Mr. Orange]

New comer here to the snake pit. How are you all doing.
**** Unorthodox Behavioral  Traits and Attributes pose the biggest obstacle for Darwinian Evolutionary theory.

[Astreja]

**** Unorthodox Behavioral  Traits and Attributes pose the biggest obstacle for Darwinian Evolutionary theory.

Actually, they're evidence in favour of evolution.  If a quirky behaviour is based on a physiological trait (for example, some structural variation in the brain that causes a tic in certain light conditions, or an aversion to a certain colour of berry), if the behaviour saves the animal in a life-or-death situation its physical cause will very likely get passed down to the offspring.

[jdawg70]

New comer here to the snake pit. How are you all doing.
**** Unorthodox Behavioral  Traits and Attributes pose the biggest obstacle for Darwinian Evolutionary theory.

No, ignorance and misinformation is the biggest obstacle for the theory of evolution.  If not for that, I'd think that continued refinement of that particular model of reality we have would progress much, much faster.

Just my opinion though.

Did you mean something else by obstacle?

[jaimehlers]

**** Unorthodox Behavioral  Traits and Attributes pose the biggest obstacle for Darwinian Evolutionary theory.

Don't just say that something poses an obstacle, explain why.  For example, I would argue that unorthodox behavioral traits and attributes are necessary for the theory in order to work.  A species where everything had the same traits and attributes would likely evolve itself into extinction, because it couldn't adapt to sudden changes.

[Add Homonym]

New comer here to the snake pit.

Prove that this is a snake pit, and not the pit of truth. You can't make the assertion that we are agents of Satan, without proving it.

[eh!]

Hi Mr Orange, what pit did you escape from to end up here?

[Mr. Orange]

***This well written piece makes me think. And makes me think very hard. What if non intelligence is more powerful than intelligence? If evolutionary changes are part of non intelligent changes, then I will conclude that evolutionary process is more powerful than intelligent process.
***Here, we have a problem. We always thought we were  special because of our intelligence, but reality teaches otherwise. How can this be?