Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
-Demosthenes-

Evidence of Evolution

Recommended Posts

If you doubt science has the answers, turn of your computer.

Science as we know it has limits. Science was created by flawed beings (humans) therefore science as an establishment must have flaws.

I don't doubt science has answers. I just realize that current science doesn’t have all of them. More answers and more questions will come with time.

Please get back to evolution!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you doubt science has the answers, turn of your computer.

 

and his lights, tv, anything electronic, get rid of the clothes that are made of synthetic fibres, throw out all plastics and processed metals.... i can go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you doubt science has the answers, turn of your computer.

 

I am sorry, but that is such bullshit. If you find a perfectly straight road running for hundreds of miles, you don't need to believe that it will extend in a straight line to infinity before you can make use of it. Science has been extremely useful in most of the things we have done in this planet. There is no guarantee that it has all the answers, and if we find that it doesn't we don't invalidate all of the scientific discoveries made so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My personal view is that it is all tied in with sentience. We don't regard animals as sentient because they don't (we presume) have a well developed sense of self. Part of that sense of self is our morality - having an opinion about whether we (or more correctly our actions) are right or wrong.

 

So I would say that the coming of sin to the world was really us gaining our self awareness. By eating the apple of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' we learn right from wrong and so when we do wrong we sin - we go against God (which is our definition of good).

 

Now clearly if we are sentient (with morality) and animals are not' date=' then there had to be a point in evolution where man became sentient. It is our self awareness which made Adam hide his nakedness. It is our self awareness which allows us to distinguish right from wrong and indeed which makes our actions right or wrong.

 

We even have this distinction in our vocabulary. Someone who is immoral is a bad person, but someone who is amoral is less than human.[/quote']

 

I think this is quite a nice way to try and combine these two things. I'm not a Christian at all but I think it's quite a clever idea anyhow. The only problem I can see is that the 'falling into sin', in this sense, would not actually be a conscious decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry, but that is such bullshit. If you find a perfectly straight road running for hundreds of miles, you don't need to believe that it will extend in a straight line to infinity before you can make use of it. Science has been extremely useful in most of the things we have done in this planet. There is no guarantee that it has all the answers, and if we find that it doesn't we don't invalidate all of the scientific discoveries made so far.

Thank you Severian! I was tried of playing defense.

 

I think this is quite a nice way to try and combine these two things. I'm not a Christian at all but I think it's quite a clever idea anyhow. The only problem I can see is that the 'falling into sin', in this sense, would not actually be a conscious decision.

 

Yes that is interesting. "Falling into sin" becomes the development of sentience.

 

I recently read an article about the interbreeding of Chimps and our Hominid ancestors. Apparently it took millions of years for our ancestors to completely differentiate from apes because the two groups were constantly having intimate relations. Perhaps when we developed sentience we developed a dislike of breeding outside of our species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem I can see is that the 'falling into sin', in this sense, would not actually be a conscious decision.

 

Logically it never can be. If eating the apple is wrong, then a being who never does anything wrong (because they cannot choose to do so) can never eat the apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logically it never can be. If eating the apple is wrong, then a being who never does anything wrong (because they cannot choose to do so) can never eat the apple.

 

Was adam unable to do wrong? I wasn't aware of that. I assumed that he had free will and always chose to do good but my knowledge of the bible is pretty poor. Could we not say that the devil provided him with the opportunity to make a free choice by tempting him?

 

If it is how you say, then this whole 'fallen in to sin' thing is even more ludacris than I had previously been led to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry, but that is such bullshit. If you find a perfectly straight road running for hundreds of miles, you don't need to believe that it will extend in a straight line to infinity before you can make use of it. Science has been extremely useful in most of the things we have done in this planet. There is no guarantee that it has all the answers, and if we find that it doesn't we don't invalidate all of the scientific discoveries made so far.

 

Weather science will have the answers to all our questions is unknown. I personally believe that it will take us a very long way. The point is, and I will use your metaphor, that the road thus far has been fairly straight. I am not implying that no mistakes have been made; in fact science couldn’t progress without the mistakes. If you are willing to accept scientific discoveries behind practical technology as "fact" than you should, by logic, accept the theory of evolution. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weather science will have the answers to all our questions is unknown. I personally believe that it will take us a very long way. The point is, and I will use your metaphor, that the road thus far has been fairly straight. I am not implying that no mistakes have been made; in fact science couldn’t progress without the mistakes. If you are willing to accept scientific discoveries behind practical technology as "fact" than you should, by logic, accept the theory of evolution. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

Neither Severian nor myself rejected evolution.

Further more "science" is a methodology by which we study the natural world. You are pushing it as if it were a religion and anyone who’s believes even slightly differently is a blasphemer.

I believe very firmly in evolution but have been trying to make it clear that I am open minded to other possibilities however unlikely they may be.

 

Was Adam unable to do wrong? I wasn't aware of that. I assumed that he had free will and always chose to do good but my knowledge of the bible is pretty poor. Could we not say that the devil provided him with the opportunity to make a free choice by tempting him?

 

If it is how you say' date=' then this whole 'fallen in to sin' thing is even more ludacris than I had previously been led to believe.[/quote']

I think he is speaking of Adam in terms of a metaphor for some early human ansestor. It would make sense to me that "Fallen into sin" could reflect the development of sentience in humans. Adam was "sent out of the garden" (metaphorically) because unlike other animals which live fighting, fleeing, and frolicking, we woe and worry about our past or future deeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither Severian nor myself rejected evolution.

Further more "science" is a methodology by which we study the natural world. You are pushing it as if it were a religion and anyone who’s believes even slightly differently is a blasphemer.

I believe very firmly in evolution but have been trying to make it clear that I am open minded to other possibilities however unlikely they may be.

 

Are you also open minded to the fact that computers might be operated by little green men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps when we developed sentience we developed a dislike of breeding outside of our species.

 

First, by definition, you can't breed with another species, simply because we often define a species by all the individuals that can interbreed and produce a fertile offspring.

 

Also I'd like to point out the differences between humans and the other great apes aren't that great. Most great apes have a certain form of conscience, and all of them are quite intelligent. It's more quantitative than qualitative.

 

The interpretation of Severian is interesting, I wish similar views were more widespread among monotheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you also open minded to the fact that computers might be operated by little green men?

 

It seems unlikely, but that would explain alot about Bill Gates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First' date=' by definition, you can't breed with another species, simply because we often define a species by all the individuals that can interbreed and produce a fertile offspring.

 

Also I'd like to point out the differences between humans and the other great apes aren't that great. Most great apes have a certain form of conscience, and all of them are quite intelligent. It's more quantitative than qualitative.

 

The interpretation of Severian is interesting, I wish similar views were more widespread among monotheists.[/quote']

 

Coyotes and wolves are different species, (Coyote: Canis latrans) (Wolves: Canis lupus) but recent evidence from Maine suggests that eastern coyotes are hybrids between the two. Hybrids between coyotes and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris: subspecies of wolf) are also possible. They are commonly called Coy-dogs.

Now I know that apes are smart, but are the sentient, or at the very least as smart as we are.

Slightly off topic, are apes as absurd as we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you also open minded to the fact that computers might be operated by little green men?

 

There is nothing wrong with being open minded, there is something wrong with being sacastic and over criticle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironghost, its not being openminded that he's bothered about, its just people who are too open minded and let their mind fill up with crap, kind of like going on the internet without a firewall and virus protection, your gonna let a lot of crap into your computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironghost, its not being openminded that he's bothered about, its just people who are too open minded and let their mind fill up with crap, kind of like going on the internet without a firewall and virus protection, your gonna let a lot of crap into your computer.

 

I don't crap up my mind, I say things that seem unlikely could happen.

I don't believe in creationism, or the Christian God, or Adam and Eve! I just like to remind myself that I might be wrong!

I don't want to be over sure of anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing wrong with being open minded, there is something wrong with being sacastic and over criticle.

 

“Of course we must be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” Richard Dawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Of course we must be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” Richard Dawkins

My brain is fine, . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Of course we must be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” Richard Dawkins

 

My brain is fine, . . .

 

so's mine . . .

 

First' date=' by definition, you can't breed with another species, simply because we often define a species by all the individuals that can interbreed and produce a fertile offspring.

 

Also I'd like to point out the differences between humans and the other great apes aren't that great. Most great apes have a certain form of conscience, and all of them are quite intelligent. It's more quantitative than qualitative.

 

The interpretation of Severian is interesting, I wish similar views were more widespread among monotheists.[/quote']

I thought you could make hybrids in the same taxomic family, like that Polar bear-Grizzly hybrid that someone shot in Canada recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very good website that WILL answer SOME of your questions is

http://www.answersingenesis.org

You don't have to quote someone's entire multi-paragraph post just to give us a link instead of a counter-argument. Please make better use of the tools available and stop wasting database space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are willing to accept scientific discoveries behind practical technology as "fact" than you should, by logic, accept the theory of evolution. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

I have no problem with evolution (at least in some form, if not exactly Darwin's original version). What I have a problem with was your statement that science could either answer all our questions or none at all. I don't think your statement showed much 'freethinking'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coyotes and wolves are different species, (Coyote: Canis latrans) (Wolves: Canis lupus) but recent evidence from Maine suggests that eastern coyotes are hybrids between the two. Hybrids between coyotes and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris: subspecies of wolf) are also possible. They are commonly called Coy-dogs.

 

I thought you could make hybrids in the same taxomic family, like that Polar bear-Grizzly hybrid that someone shot in Canada recently.

 

Well, you've just found out one of many problems about our "biological species" concept...

 

==> http://research.amnh.org/ornithology/crossbills/species.html

 

Now I know that apes are smart, but are the sentient, or at the very least as smart as we are.

 

Not as smart, it's why I said we were quantitatively different. However there's a tendency to underestimates the other great apes, I've just read an article in science, scientists have found that bonobos and orangutans were able to "plan ahead". We though (again), we were the only one able to do this.

 

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/518/2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as smart, it's why I said we were quantitatively[/b'] different. However there's a tendency to underestimates the other great apes, I've just read an article in science, scientists have found that bonobos and orangutans were able to "plan ahead". We though (again), we were the only one able to do this.

 

Once again our simple views of our own supremacy are defeated!

I have often believed we were closer to animals than we were made our selves out to be, but never had enough information on the matter!

 

They can plan, I wonder what else they can do. I'll do some reasearch and come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again our simple views of our own supremacy are defeated!

I have often believed we were closer to animals than we were made our selves out to be' date=' but never had enough information on the matter!

 

They can plan, I wonder what else they can do. I'll do some reasearch and come back.[/quote']

They can use tools for tasks as well, which we once thought only humans could do, as there is a video of a primate (can't remember which species) using a stick to check the depth of a stream before going into it, there are most likely many other examples of this as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can use tools for tasks as well, which we once thought only humans could do, as there is a video of a primate (can't remember which species) using a stick to check the depth of a stream before going into it, there are most likely many other examples of this as well.

 

While I was researching I found an article on wikipedia. One part described a study done on human and chimp babies. The study was made to compare how the two different species learn while young. It was determined that young chimps learn from experience while baby humans learn by imitation.

 

I saw something on the discovery channel a while ago, it was about Neanderthals. At one point they described how neanderthals had mature brains at a young age for survival in the wild. Could this difference between humans and chimps be for a similar reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.