Evolution

I really, really fail to see how a majority of this thread provides evidence that man "has not evolved" so to speak. The question itself is far too open ended. Unless you just paraphrased the question, "Has man really evolved?" is in no way specific enough to base an entire thesis off of. Evolved from what? That would have to be a key portion of the question. Otherwise you could just state your own opinion on the state of man today and then back it up with selective polling and assumptions on how man used to be.

Even if you DID have a period of analysis (the period over which you're analyzing the evolution, or lack thereof, of man) you couldn't possibly say no. You could argue that man's evolution has been positive or negative, but you can't deny that man has indeed "evolved." If you're going to argue that man's barbarism is still in tact, are you going to neglect the numerous ways in which we have evolved in that "area"?

Also, about your "just because I quoted it doesn't mean it was directed at you" thing: if you're going to use bait like that to contrive results for your thesis, you aren't getting results fairly. You're using psychology to bend people to respond in ways that support your ideas. When you put quotes like those in discussions, especially when you preface them with things like,"Oh, only Real will get this," of course people are going to respond as if you're speaking down to them because there is no other way to take it when it's together with the body of the rest of the text. Maybe you are innocent of this and don't understand linguistics or the human mind, but I doubt that, and I think it's really shady how your gathering data here.

Also, Real, none of these responses are because of you being Christian. If anybody from another belief system were to come into this thread and start spouting off the same incorrect assumptions like what TConwell and IntaminFan were doing, they would get the same response. I'm sure you are less psycho than a lot of Christians are, and you've demonstrated that, but wrong is wrong regardless of who it comes from.

[coolbeans326]

Who unlocked it? Gazag?

*Pimp smack you with my cane... bee-otch!*

sorry not me

[Oscar]

ok I am here now, I am sure you guys have taken a few days to have a breather. You can keep replying, just remain civilized!

Evolution is a scientific theory, just as relativity and gravitation. In Science, a theory is a observation, a conclusion made with facts, the facts of evolution being the fossil record, and biology. A theory is not opposite of fact, not in science anyway, but outside of science, theories are considered speculation, most of the time, and this speculation is what people consider to be the meaning of theory in science, which it is not.

Someone stated earlier that they do not believe we evolved from a swirling ball of gas, well, we did not, we evolved from lower species, evolution only takes place in living things, chemicals, stars, gas, and all non-living matter does not evolve, it can change, but it can not evolve.

And to anyone here that accepts creationism, are there any other things that you accept without faith? Just a question... like ghosts, is there anything else you believe exists, without prove of its existence?

[hyyyper]

^there are way more things that support the theory of evolution (to put it in that way) than 'just biology' and some fossils

Originally posted by Dragon Fly
are there any other things that you accept without faith?

Why do you even need to? Of course I dont need faith to accept scientific laws or other obvious truths.

But in speaking of faith and science...

'Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind ????????? in fact his own mind ????????? has a good chance of understanding this order.'

-Charles Townes

Originally posted by Real

Originally posted by Dragon Fly
are there any other things that you accept without faith?

Why do you even need to? Of course I dont need faith to accept scientific laws or other obvious truths.

But in speaking of faith and science...

'Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind ????????? in fact his own mind ????????? has a good chance of understanding this order.'

-Charles Townes

Science is used to determine the universe, or gain an understanding of it, well, thats among its uses anyway. You do not need faith to have confidence, a hypothesis is not faith, and nor is confidence. When I speak of Faith, I mean its meaning of believing something without any evidence, if you approach science with faith, then you have some presuppositions, science is looking at the facts, and then making a conclusion, faith is a conclusion before any facts are shown. And for a man to have confidence in his mind, that is not faith, that is confidence...

Granted faith has more then one meaning, but to accept ANYTHING without sufficient evidence is beyond being an idiot, it is so unbelievably irrational I cant even begin to explain the amount of pity and anger I have for people that are that ignorant and that stupid.

And for a man to have confidence in his mind, that is not faith, that is confidence...

Sure you want to say that?

con?????????fi?????????dence ?????????noun

1. full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: We have every confidence in their ability to succeed.
2. belief in oneself and one's powers or abilities; self-confidence; self-reliance; assurance: His lack of confidence defeated him.

faith ?????????noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Plus 2 or 3 more definitions, obviously dealing with religion, but they all share the word "belief". Secondly, they are synonyms everywhere you look. Trust, confidence, faith - they all are interchangeable.


Plus, you cannot tell me what you do not know. You also cannot be confident in your minds ability to do something you dont know or havent done. I think its an ignorant statement and without using the word faith in the context of religion, I would bet almost every scientist would agree with the man I quoted.

Faith, in this context, is believing that your brain can grow, expand and reach as far as youll need it. I find it hard to have confidence unless youve been in a similar situation. Maybe not the same, but ANYTIME you step into a complete unknown - faith takes that place. To step into an unknown and call it confidence is both arrogent and ignorant. Do you not think that when the first space vessel launched into orbit that majority of those engineers and scientists were not working on faith? Testing gives you ideas, but it still doesnt erase the fact that it was a complete unknown. They were making calculations based on what they thought - and hoped - would be sufficient to withstand what - was and might - be out there.

I do not see why, people of such supposed open mindedness cannot use a word like faith without automatically assuming its dealing with religion. Interchanging the word faith with confidence simply because you want to avoid the "religious" implications of the word is simply lacking sense.

Umm, well now. I stated that I was using the definition of faith about believing without reason, and that the man was probably using the definition about trust... but whatever.

Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

Faith as in trust in your own mind is different then blindly believing that evolution is false. My whole point was that believing in something without sufficient evidence is bull, and when did I tell you something I did not know? If something I do not know comes up, I will gladly admit it. And to explore a realm that is unknown does not require believing anything without reason, you use your own rationality to create a hypothesis, or a thought on what may happen, but faith in the definition of believing without reason does not come into question and should NEVER come into question.

And now, to repeat what my point was:

To accept ANYTHING without sufficient evidence is beyond being an idiot, it is so unbelievably irrational I cant even begin to explain the amount of pity and anger I have for people that are that ignorant and that stupid.


I already stated that when I was using the word faith, I meant its definition of (2.belief that is not based on proof), not once did I specify otherwise, so I do not see what this faith-confidence thing is about, yes confidence, trust, and faith are interchangeable when you use the certain meanings, but I specified that I was using 2(.belief that is not based on proof) Which should never be accepted along the same lines as trust, and never be accepted in science, conclusions should be made after observation.

I'm on Real's side.

Real's side of what? We just talked about different meanings of faith, and I guess you do not agree with me that believing in something without sufficient evidence is irrational... I guess you mean that you are a Deist/Theist.

Nope, Taoist. [;)]

SLASH do you really need to argue about the meaning of faith? This is about evolution, ladies.

Faith come up, not to surprising, as those that reject evolution generally also believe the world is 6000 years old... Well, not all that reject evolution, but quite a few anyway. But faith does bring a big issue on evolution for some, and its only natural that some people reject due to faith, or some people believe in ~micro~evolution, what a load that is, but what ever the case, this kind of faith (I do not feel the need to specify what definition I mean) rejects evolution as science sees it without a problem.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Dragonfly, in this entire topic you've been blatantly wrong and explaining things in the wrong way. Through this entire thread I've had to repeat myself to answer something you continue to answer wrong over and over again despite my best efforts. If you really want to "convert" Real and others or whatever term you want to use that means to change his mind, giving him info he knows if wrong is doing just the opposite and wasting his time. Seriously if you're going to debate at least have somewhat right information. You yourself need to be more open minded. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means but I have had at least a small bit of college introductory training since evolution relates to my intended major in college. I'm majoring in geology and paleontology is a portion of geology, so I will have to take a course in paleo in the future. I've only had an introduction to earth history course which has a brief unit on evolution but it really only covers the cladogenesis vs. anagenesis, that Darwin is wrong, all of that basic introductory crap.

In the last two week someone discovered a skull that screws up the entire evolutionary human tree. This whole evolution thing is much more complicated than you seem to think it is. What we know now isn't set in stone and can change, like it did in the past few weeks. That's called progress. You're using theories to answer questions that haven't been answered, which is alarming.

You have realize it is understandable to not believe in something that keeps reinventing and changing itself around every 50 years or so. These changes have been for the better so far, but they're still radical changes and there will probably be more in the future as China has started to allow paleontologists into the region, which is where "transition fossils" have been found over the years. Things change. PLease consider that everything is blindly done because of the Bible. Some people happen to like the Bible's version better because the story ha at least stayed the same in the past 2000 years.

Things Evolution Doesn't Answer:
*How did life start?
*How did the universe start?

Summary:
Keep your trap shut

Did I say evolution answers the beginning of life and the universe? I will go over what I posted, as evolution has nothing to do with genesis or the beginning of the universe, those are different topics. I am not trying to convert anyone, my first post in this topic showed what I wanted to know, how many people here accept\reject evolution. I also stated that I could not believe how stupid people could be.... Well, people are stupid, but to reject things backed by evidence on the grounds of faith is ridiculous.

[Coasterkidmwm]

It's ridiculous that you keep making completely false claims to back yourself up. Stop it.

What false claims did I make in that one post? I only made two claims really, that belief without evidence is irrational, and evolution has nothing to do with genesis or the beginning of the universe...

[Coasterkidmwm]

Did you not read the entire topic or anything Real posted in response to you?

What he did, was state his own opinions (and called them claims which you have taken as factual basis) ... I think you are getting wrapped around the axle on this one CK.

--> Just trying to keep the conversation moving ....

Well... I guess its nice to see that a majority of people accept evolution, and CK is not getting wrapped around the axle, he knows more on this topic then I do, and that is obvious.

What irritates me to the max is the following: all these creationists (and their followers believing in creationism) do live and act in a deep state of sin.

In fact, from a Christian point of view, at least(!) two or three of the deadly seven sins apply to about any proposal of creationism. I'm lacking the time to explain in very detail, so will at least try to give you an idea why I seriously think that creationists are proposing THE evil with their so called "beliefs".

In short, a deadly sin rundow for you, to think about:


- Creationists are Pride!

Like any with about almost any religion, this is just one other of thousands of ?????????beliefs????????? that claims to be ?????????the one and only????????? absolute truth. Seeing that billions of humans on this planet have oh so different beliefs, any humble man could easily assume that each religion is one more of mankind?????????s attempts to desperatley find some final answers. (and I say ?????????find?????????! Not ?????????give?????????!). With so many different religions claiming ?????????the truth?????????, most must be miserably failing at the job. Which then? And why on earth should this current ?????????trendy????????? one in any way be more ?????????credible????????? that any other? Where is humility and respect?

Your creator has given you a brain and lot?????????s of handy senses. So, with any serious science, be it the theory of evolution, cosmology, or quantum physics, a scientist will at all times know that his observation is based on said senses, that his theories are just that: theories evolving a human mind. Given this ?????????self-awareness????????? of the scientific approach, any thing a scientist comes up with is temporary, and incomplete. Why not. In fact it's a matter of having a backbone and stamina! Plus faith, yes faith, into a honest path! Find, try, test, fail, evolve your thinking. Expect uncertainity over and over. Why not? We are not God, we are only humans, limited by our given capabilities and bound to fail in any of our conclusions.

Serious science, and IMO science only, is capable of providing a christian approach to observing the world, since it will strictly forbid us to repeat eating the apple of thruth, by that way forbidding us to ?????????take the name of the Lord thy God in vain?????????. Science simply forbids this by it's own methods of observation. A scientist is clueless by definition, he is aware of that and honest about his cluelessness, and therefor he will change his view in case other or better observations are coming along. Thus we must understand:


- Creationists enforce Sloth!

I repeat, your creator has given you a brain and lot?????????s of senses. These naturally have to be educated and trained. It's the grand biblical story of the talents, (Matthew 25:13-30). In this case these talents are yours! Yet creationists refuse to observe anything with the required caution or awareness about their own human shortcomings. Instead, blunt claims are made. Which immediately leads us to the next deadly sin:


- Creationists practice Wrath!

Any others who make different observations are attacked in an unholy condescending and arrogant manner. The way science intentionaly is misinterpreted for concealing the own cluelessness also clearly offends the eight commandment.


With this said, I see lots of people believing in creationism as lazy wimps, unable to accept their own limited human nature. If there is a creator, and he has made us like this, so be it! I still can live an upright christian life without knowing when and why my creator decided to make it this way. I personally prefer to have a backbone and accept that I not only do not know any final answers, but also most probably will never know any. I can calmly go to sleep at night without these answers. I do not and never want to live in a state of sin and arrogance simply for soothing my own deep questions with some cheap answers from someone else. That?????????s also why I can perfectly live with any scientific theories and explanations. These are just as uncertain as our whole life is, and by that, these are absolutely honest.

The criminal abuse of the bible, simply for spoon-force-feeding people into a state of self-un-aware dumbness has already reached an outrageous level. But I fear it will get worse even. Too little is the education about what sciencific thinking can do for your personal morality and honesty. Too strong is the human desire to rather have cheap answers than to grow a backbone and be meek.

From my Christian point of view, I have come to the conclusion that the current creationist movement is throughout evil, if not even plain satanistic.


Your?????????s, very sincerely, redunzelizer

Originally posted by redunzelizer

What irritates me to the max is the following: all these creationists (and their followers believing in creationism) do live and act in a deep state of sin.

In fact, from a Christian point of view, at least(!) two or three of the deadly seven sins apply to about any proposal of creationism. I'm lacking the time to explain in very detail, so will at least try to give you an idea why I seriously think that creationists are proposing THE evil with their so called "beliefs".

In short, a deadly sin rundow for you, to think about:


- Creationists are Pride!

Like any with about almost any religion, this is just one other of thousands of ?????????beliefs????????? that claims to be ?????????the one and only????????? absolute truth. Seeing that billions of humans on this planet have oh so different beliefs, any humble man could easily assume that each religion is one more of mankind?????????s attempts to desperatley find some final answers. (and I say ?????????find?????????! Not ?????????give?????????!). With so many different religions claiming ?????????the truth?????????, most must be miserably failing at the job. Which then? And why on earth should this current ?????????trendy????????? one in any way be more ?????????credible????????? that any other? Where is humility and respect?

Your creator has given you a brain and lot?????????s of handy senses. So, with any serious science, be it the theory of evolution, cosmology, or quantum physics, a scientist will at all times know that his observation is based on said senses, that his theories are just that: theories evolving a human mind. Given this ?????????self-awareness????????? of the scientific approach, any thing a scientist comes up with is temporary, and incomplete. Why not. In fact it's a matter of having a backbone! Find, try, test, fail, evolve your thinking. Expect uncertainity over and over. Why not? We are not God, we are only humans, limited by our given capabilities and bound to fail in any of our conclusions.

Serious science, and IMO science only, is capable of providing a christian approach to observing the world, since it will strictly forbid us to repeat eating the apple of thruth, by that way forbidding us to ?????????take the name of the Lord thy God in vain?????????. Science simply forbids this by it's own methods of observation. A scientist is clueless by definition, he is aware of that and honest about his cluelessness, and therefor he will change his view in case other or better observations are coming along. Thus we must understand:


- Creationists enforce Sloth!

I repeat, your creator has given you a brain and lot?????????s of senses. These naturally have to be educated and trained. It's the grand biblical story of the talents, (Matthew 25:13-30). In this case these talents are yours! Yet creationists refuse to observe anything with the required caution or awareness about their own human shortcomings. Instead, blunt claims are made. Which immediately leads us to the next deadly sin:


- Creationists practice Wrath!

Any others who make different observations are attacked in an unholy condescending and arrogant manner. The way science intentionaly is misinterpreted for concealing the own cluelessness also clearly offends the eight commandment.


With this said, I see lots of people believing in creationism as lazy wimps, unable to accept their own limited human nature. If there is a creator, and he has made us like this, so be it! I still can live an upright christian life without knowing when and why my creator decided to make it this way. I personally prefer to have a backbone and accept that I not only do not know any final answers, but also most probably will never know any. I can calmly go to sleep at night without these answers. I do not and never want to live in a state of sin and arrogance simply for soothing my own deep questions with some cheap answers from someone else. That?????????s also why I can perfectly live with any scientific theories and explanations. These are just as uncertain as our whole life is, and by that, these are absolutely honest.

The criminal abuse of the bible, simply for spoon-force-feeding people into a state of self-un-aware dumbness has already reached an outrageous level. But I fear it will get worse even. Too little is the education about what sciencific thinking can do for your personal morality and honesty. Too strong is the human desire to rather have cheap answers than to grow a backbone and be meek.

From my Christian point of view, I have come to the conclusion that the current creationist movement is throughout evil, if not even plain satanistic.


Your?????????s, very sincerely, redunzelizer

Nicely stated. Can't sum it up any better.

Where is humility and respect?

I will agree, FAR too many christians have NO respect for others beliefs when it comes to - especially - other religions. This is a human thing, not a religious thing. Reading the bible will even prove that christianity is NOT about condemnation. Jesus says this himself and never once does he condemn someone else.

Infact, I wont go point by point because you bring up valid points. I am sometimes the first to judge the church (which, by command we are supposed to do) because there are some heinous things going on. I dont know if I would go as far as to call satnistic, but yes, some people border on just being plain evil.


Alot of the Bible and Jesus' teachings require GREAT thinking, self examination and change. 90% of those who call themselves christians arent willing to make the sacrifice. And thus lead the same exact life they used too but throw on the tag Christian.

Then when issues like this spring up (evolution, abortion, etc) they jump right to the front as if they actually knew what they were talking about.

I love this song by a christian artist who normally catches alot of flack because he writes things that sometimes attack the churches problems - and who would want to address problems? Heck, you might be part of it and - GASP - you might be found out. Anyways, sums up my feelings.

Go ahead, grab your picket sign
And you can find out what you're protesting later on
It sure feels great to be a part of something, doesn't it?
Just as long as you belong

DragonFly:

To accept ANYTHING without sufficient evidence is beyond being an idiot, it is so unbelievably irrational I cant even begin to explain the amount of pity and anger I have for people that are that ignorant and that stupid.

When it comes to having faith in God - which, to you, can neither be proven true NOR false, I think its only proper that you would be able to accepting of that. Im not here nor am I trying to convert anyone. I think Ive said more in favor (and on the topic of) evolution than anything. Thats what this is about, right?

So first I need to know if you can respect someone elses beliefs.

Secondly, I would hope that a scientist doesnt accept a hypothesis or theory without the knowledge needed to understand. I was trying to explain that every human, and especially scientists, exercise faith at some core level.


Back to evolution!

[jayman]

that sounds like steve taylor.., if he's still around.. great quote in any case..