Ida (The Fossil) [Archive] - AbsolutePunk.net

Mercy Medical

05/20/09, 11:31 AM

do you really think they won't have some argument against this?

like someone told me this piece wasn't necessarily left on site before scientists found it, so creationists could claim it was forged or something.
I honestly don't understand the whole creationism/evolution debate. Yea, it's interesting to know how this whole crazy place was created, but in the end we're all going to die and we may go to heaven/hell we may just rot in the ground, but this kind of stuff really doesn't matter...

And I really don't understand the need to constantly prove religious people wrong. They are either going to a) stick to what they believe and seemingly make up a defense around this b) not really care or c) lose their belief in creationism/God/whatever. What does anyone really get out of that personally other then they "gotcha!" aspect of it?

Mercy Medical

05/20/09, 11:35 AM

The fact that it predates us by about 40 million years is enough evidence to dispel creationism (to those who are moderates, obviously there is nothing that will shake the arrogance of creationists).
I don't necessarily think that debunks creationism as there are lots of things that predate us. I mean, there's obviously the whole dinosaur aspect (which I was always confused about as a young Christian) that's not really explained in the Bible. I think literalist will be proven wrong (those that believe the world was really created in 7 days, blah, blah, blah), but I suppose I adhere to a certain evolution/creationism hybrid theory of sorts...

IAmNietzche

05/20/09, 11:38 AM

I thought Eda was the missing link?

J.C.

05/20/09, 11:40 AM

I read this earlier this morning haha pretty crazy stuff, I still think religious people will find some way around it

Everyone knows God planted dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith.

Animalhill

05/20/09, 11:45 AM

I honestly don't understand the whole creationism/evolution debate. Yea, it's interesting to know how this whole crazy place was created, but in the end we're all going to die and we may go to heaven/hell we may just rot in the ground, but this kind of stuff really doesn't matter...

And I really don't understand the need to constantly prove religious people wrong. They are either going to a) stick to what they believe and seemingly make up a defense around this b) not really care or c) lose their belief in creationism/God/whatever. What does anyone really get out of that personally other then they "gotcha!" aspect of it?
I'm defintely not interested in ripping away or damaging an individuals faith- more debunking the broader, opressive Christian "truths", and in turn reducing the "validity" of religiously based policy in the USA.

Animalhill

05/20/09, 11:46 AM

I don't necessarily think that debunks creationism as there are lots of things that predate us. I mean, there's obviously the whole dinosaur aspect (which I was always confused about as a young Christian) that's not really explained in the Bible. I think literalist will be proven wrong (those that believe the world was really created in 7 days, blah, blah, blah), but I suppose I adhere to a certain evolution/creationism hybrid theory of sorts...
Yeah I'm talking about the Fundamentalists. According to the Bible, Eve was not a cat-sized lemur like creature.

Mercy Medical

05/20/09, 11:47 AM

I'm defintely not interested in ripping away or damaging an individuals faith- more debunking the broader, opressive Christian "truths", and in turn reducing the "validity" of religiously based policy in the USA.

Yeah I'm talking about the Fundamentalists. According to the Bible, Eve was not a cat-sized lemur like creature.Understandable, I suppose the "OMG WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW CHRISTIANS?!" responses in this thread just erk me a bit and make me a bit defensive because it's difficult to tell if someone is talking about fundies or all Christians...

Animalhill

05/20/09, 11:50 AM

Understandable, I suppose the "OMG WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW CHRISTIANS?!" responses in this thread just erk me a bit and make me a bit defensive because it's difficult to tell if someone is talking about fundies or all Christians...
I hear you man. I personally am an atheist- reared by a Catholic Father and Jewish Mother (talk about awkward holidays). I have nothing against your average Christian at all.

screamoutmyname

05/20/09, 11:53 AM

Everyone knows God planted dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith.

Hahaha :appl:

Mercy Medical

05/20/09, 11:55 AM

I hear you man. I personally am an atheist- reared by a Catholic Father and Jewish Mother (talk about awkward holidays). I have nothing against your average Christian at all.
Haha and PS, I'm a girl. :-P

Animalhill

05/20/09, 11:59 AM

Haha and PS, I'm a girl. :-P
Oy vey! My bad- I'm at the office and my boss is walking up and down our rows making sure we're not fucking around. Which naturally I am- just hastily. My mistake!

billyboatkid

05/20/09, 12:08 PM

Damn, that's crazy.

x togepi x

05/20/09, 12:26 PM

The fact that it predates us by about 40 million years is enough evidence to dispel creationism (to those who are moderates, obviously there is nothing that will shake the arrogance of creationists).

they are going to say that since it wasn't left in the ground, we couldn't date the area around it, so the fossile is meaningless without context.

I'm just saying, they can come up with arguments.

I honestly don't understand the whole creationism/evolution debate. Yea, it's interesting to know how this whole crazy place was created, but in the end we're all going to die and we may go to heaven/hell we may just rot in the ground, but this kind of stuff really doesn't matter...

And I really don't understand the need to constantly prove religious people wrong. They are either going to a) stick to what they believe and seemingly make up a defense around this b) not really care or c) lose their belief in creationism/God/whatever. What does anyone really get out of that personally other then they "gotcha!" aspect of it?

my answer to this question would get everyone in the forum to argue with me. i don't know if i have time for that. haha.

Mercy Medical

05/20/09, 12:34 PM

Animalhill

05/20/09, 12:38 PM

they are going to say that since it wasn't left in the ground, we couldn't date the area around it, so the fossile is meaningless without context.

I'm just saying, they can come up with arguments.

my answer to this question would get everyone in the forum to argue with me. i don't know if i have time for that. haha.

I guess that goes without saying- anyone who's opinion is based on faith, and not fact, will always have a "what if" to throw back at you. But like I said in a previous post, I'm not looking to try and dismantle the average persons faith.

doppelganger

05/20/09, 02:15 PM

google's homepage looks nice today

anamericangod

05/20/09, 02:17 PM

This is pretty low key for supposedly being "the missing link." Still awesome though.

Lueda Alia

05/20/09, 02:23 PM

I thought Eda was the missing link?
Shhh.

blindrider529

05/20/09, 04:40 PM

This is pretty low key for supposedly being "the missing link." Still awesome though.
I would assume it's because the "missing link" has been found before (Java Man, Peking Man, Homo Erectus, etc) and will surely be found many times in the future. The idea of one magical missing link is popular in the media, but scientists are more interested in studying gazillions of transitional fossils.

Volo

05/20/09, 04:57 PM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/volotani/FAGSGOTTOLDIda.png

QuikTrig

05/20/09, 05:51 PM

i wonder if theres a thread about the actual scientific progress this fossil represents. maybe an actual discussion about the FOSSIL and the science that accompanies it, since it is afterall a "groundbreaking discovery". it would actually be fun to read.

but i don't know why i'd expect that here at ap. supposedly one of the biggest discoveries in the modern era and all i'm reading are "suck on this creationists" posts.

J.C.

05/20/09, 06:22 PM

lol @ google's homepage

lfdfforever

05/20/09, 06:47 PM

pretty cool but like everyone else is saying; religious folks will find a rebuttal hahahaha

zion the lion

05/20/09, 06:55 PM

And yet I still dont believe in evolution...

lfdfforever

05/20/09, 07:04 PM

me ether

Nevuk

05/20/09, 07:20 PM

A better argument than random tests of faith would be that archaelogical hoaxes have been extremely common throughout history.

x togepi x

05/20/09, 07:49 PM

i'm still confused as to how someone "can't believe in evolution." it's happened. it's been observed in species that aren't our own.

dtrzcin

05/20/09, 07:54 PM

She does not have a penis bone.

Duexy

05/20/09, 08:07 PM

She does not have a penis bone.

doppelganger

05/20/09, 08:29 PM

She does not have a penis bone.

jules_x

05/21/09, 01:29 AM

i'm still confused as to how someone "can't believe in evolution." it's happened. it's been observed in species that aren't our own.

Me neither.
Religion is placebo for the people. (Quote: Gregory House)

Mercy Medical

05/21/09, 05:26 AM

Mercy Medical

05/21/09, 05:27 AM

Me neither.
Religion is placebo for the people. (Quote: Gregory House)
You shouldn't make such broad statements about all religious individuals...

jules_x

05/21/09, 09:21 AM

You shouldn't make such broad statements about all religious individuals...

It's one thing to believe in something.
It's another to force your "way of living" on others.
As good as all organized religion - suck ass. That's just my opinion tho. I'm just saying that it should be on a personal level, not like it is today.

It's christians vs. muslims vs. jews vs. the people who are trying to take their money vs. the democrats vs. the republicans vs. the "non/I-don't-know-if-I-believers" vs. the cults.

I don't like cults. And if you take a better look at religious groups, like christian groups in the US, there is a whole lot of cult-like to it. IMO.

saysmydoctor

05/21/09, 09:21 AM

The general hoopla over the creationism/evolution debate is one side of it is far more open-minded than the other. Science is not proof that God or Genesis-esque creation didn't occur. It just points that some of the finer details in the Bible may not be completely factual. Science still doesn't explain the cosmos, creationism fills that void. However, creationists do blanketly try to science evolution discussion and education in public schooling because it does chip away at their credibility of some of their arguments. Creationists do themselves a disservice from saying "Oh this shouldn't be taught, it isn't a perfect science." God isn't a perfect science either. It's not even tangible. Yet the demand its teaching.

Mercy Medical

05/21/09, 09:43 AM

It's one thing to believe in something.
It's another to force your "way of living" on others.
As good as all organized religion - suck ass. That's just my opinion tho. I'm just saying that it should be on a personal level, not like it is today.

It's christians vs. muslims vs. jews vs. the people who are trying to take their money vs. the democrats vs. the republicans vs. the "non/I-don't-know-if-I-believers" vs. the cults.

I don't like cults. And if you take a better look at religious groups, like christian groups in the US, there is a whole lot of cult-like to it. IMO.
And that's fine and I get that, but your previous post didn't address any of that and made a sweeping generalization about all individuals involved in religion...

jules_x

05/21/09, 09:50 AM

And that's fine and I get that, but your previous post didn't address any of that and made a sweeping generalization about all individuals involved in religion...

Sorry, was the second answer better?
What can I say, have you ever heard of the Swedish town, Knutby? That's a SICK sorry! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knutby_murder ; short version, there is a book about it).

Norway is one of the few countries which haven't separated church and state, and even if it's bad here, I know it's worse in the US. And that's not a consolation, really.

The sad, sad stereotype religious Norwegian man or woman is very conservative and racist. Which I think totally suck ass.

jules_x

05/21/09, 10:01 AM

Wow, off topic. SRY

saysmydoctor

05/21/09, 10:06 AM

Big what the fuck at everything you've said in these past three posts.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 10:41 AM

And yet I still dont believe in evolution...
Gravity deniers exist too. I find both stupid.

Animalhill

05/21/09, 10:44 AM

Gravity deniers exist too. I find both stupid.
But Jason, gravity isn't mentioned in the bible!

zion the lion

05/21/09, 12:10 PM

Gravity deniers exist too. I find both stupid.

Just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt make me stupid, but those who jump to conclusions are just ignorant assholes.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 12:17 PM

Just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt make me stupid, but those who jump to conclusions are just ignorant assholes.
Sorry, but not believing in evolution does make you stupid. It's the equivalent of not believing in oxygen.

zion the lion

05/21/09, 12:33 PM

Sorry, but not believing in evolution does make you stupid. It's the equivalent of not believing in oxygen.

Just because I dont care for the theory of evolution or believe that Ida is the "missing link" doesnt make me stupid. There's been dozens of other "missing links" before, this one isnt any special.

blindrider529

05/21/09, 12:34 PM

Sorry, but not believing in evolution does make you stupid. It's the equivalent of not believing in oxygen.
No offense, but you are just awful at these comparisons to evolution. I make no case against evolution itself, but man, sometimes the way you overstate things is comical.

Animalhill

05/21/09, 12:36 PM

saysmydoctor

05/21/09, 12:38 PM

On what grounds do you not believe in evolution?

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 12:41 PM

Just because I dont care for the theory of evolution or believe that Ida is the "missing link" doesnt make me stupid. There's been dozens of other "missing links" before, this one isnt any special.
You not caring for it (and I hope you understand what the scientific definition of a "theory" is) doesn't make it any less of a reality. And it does make you stupid, basically by definition. Evolution happens. Anyone trying to pretend it doesn't is choosing to ignore reality. That makes them stupid.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 12:41 PM

No offense, but you are just awful at these comparisons to evolution. I make no case against evolution itself, but man, sometimes the way you overstate things is comical.
I'm not overstating anything. If anything I'm understating it.

zion the lion

05/21/09, 12:45 PM

You not caring for it (and I hope you understand what the scientific definition of a "theory" is) doesn't make it any less of a reality. And it does make you stupid, basically by definition.

So by definition youre an asshole because youre belittling someone for what they do or dont believe. I would hate to see you deal with other people from other cultures in real life because the way youre responding to me is just pathetic.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 12:49 PM

So by definition youre an asshole because youre belittling someone for what they do or dont believe. I would hate to see you deal with other people from other cultures in real life because the way youre responding to me is just pathetic.
I'd rather be an asshole than stupid.

I deal with people from other cultures all the time -- stupidity is not culture based. Your ignorance has nothing to do with anything beside your own unwillingness to learn. To say you don't believe in evolution (a documented scientific reality) is stupid. There's no other way to spin it. Call me an ass all you want, I'm not calling you stupid to be insulting (seriously) -- your viewpoint is just extremely ignorant - aka: stupid.

Mercy Medical

05/21/09, 12:52 PM

On what grounds do you not believe in evolution?
I second this question.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 12:53 PM

On what grounds do you not believe in evolution?
She's 16 and hasn't taken a real life biology class yet? :shrug:

J.C.

05/21/09, 12:55 PM

Just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt make me stupid, but those who jump to conclusions are just ignorant assholes.

I know how you feel. Believing the Earth is flat doesn't make me stupid. Wrong? Sure. But stupid?

Viruses are one of the most comprehendable examples we have of evolution. Their survival is reliant on their ability to mutate. And why are they forced to mutate? In the same way they're seeking to survive, so do the hosts the viruses prey on. Are you at all familiar with the immune system? Yeah, it's purpose is to adapt to combat the virus. As more time goes on, our immune systems(collectively as a species) will be exposed to diseases we haven't seen before. As a result our bodies will develop new ways to combat the new diseases, thus strengthening our immune systems and making them capable of warding off viruses they weren't strong enough to ward off in the past. And you know what that's fucking called? Evolution.

Mercy Medical

05/21/09, 12:55 PM

saysmydoctor

05/21/09, 12:55 PM

Do you believe humans and dinosaurs walked at the same time on Earth? If you say no, you believe in evolution and are just too much of a fucking idiot to realize what you are denying exists.

blindrider529

05/21/09, 12:57 PM

On what grounds do you not believe in evolution?
A better question is "What definition and what aspects of evolution do you disagree with and why?"

The theory of evolution is so much more complicated than it's usually given credit for. There are a million different aspects to it. Some people only disagree with common ancestry, some only disagree with the contention that it is and always has been unguided, some only disagree with how it started in the first place, and some just disagree with everything. Many don't understand the difference between macro and micro evolution, and that confuses the conversation further.

I think people usually disagree with one aspect, and either throw the entire theory out, or they disagree with one aspect and someone else views that as the same thing as throwing the entire theory out.

saysmydoctor

05/21/09, 12:58 PM

http://www.blogsofrealplay.com/Members/Darkstar/archives/michael-dale-huckabee.jpg

zion the lion

05/21/09, 01:00 PM

I'd rather be an asshole than stupid.

I deal with people from other cultures all the time -- stupidity is not culture based. Your ignorance has nothing to do with anything beside your own unwillingness to learn. To say you don't believe in evolution (a documented scientific reality) is stupid. There's no other way to spin it. Call me an ass all you want.

Being an asshole makes you stupid. Youre refusing to see it in any other light than your own.

There are plenty of other cultures who dont believe in evolution, which means youre calling all of them stupid too. My belief is my belief, it's not hurting you or anybody else, so it shouldnt even matter. I mean do you go around telling Muslims that theyre stupid because they believe in Paradise? Or Buddhist's theyre stupid for thinking they'll ever reach Nirvana?

Mercy Medical

05/21/09, 01:01 PM

Being an asshole makes you stupid. Youre refusing to see it in any other light than your own.

There are plenty of other cultures who dont believe in evolution, which means youre calling all of them stupid too. My belief is my belief, it's not hurting you or anybody else, so it shouldnt even matter. I mean do you go around telling Muslims that theyre stupid because they believe in Paradise? Or Buddhist's theyre stupid for thinking they'll ever reach Nirvana?
How about instead of fighting, you inform us all of why you don't believe in evolution or what you do believe in.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 01:02 PM

I can somewhat understand someone not believing in the "we came from goo that crawled out of the water and turned into ape then turned into man" type of evolution, but evolution in general happens and it's happening everywhere and it's probably happening to us right now. Species evolve with time. That much is fact and to deny that is...well...stupid.
It's not so hard to grasp when you take into account these things happen over BILLIONS of years. I mean, even if you do believe that we came from Adam and Eve, how do explain how people have different colored skin from different regions? Descendants from Adam and Eve had to EVOLVE to be able to live in certain climates/regions. So yea, I would say if someone doesn't believe in evolution, they would be stupid.

IAPAI

05/21/09, 01:04 PM

Can someone screencap Google's front page? Can't access it in Canada....

J.C.

05/21/09, 01:06 PM

Being an asshole makes you stupid. Youre refusing to see it in any other light than your own.

There are plenty of other cultures who dont believe in evolution, which means youre calling all of them stupid too. My belief is my belief, it's not hurting you or anybody else, so it shouldnt even matter. I mean do you go around telling Muslims that theyre stupid because they believe in Paradise? Or Buddhist's theyre stupid for thinking they'll ever reach Nirvana?

How do you not grasp the difference between something that's provable and something that's not provable? Beliefs about the afterlife can't be disproven, which is pretty much why religious teachings about it carry on to this day.

What you're arguing goes against what we can actually prove. You might as well be arguing that the sun doesn't exist.

Mercy Medical

05/21/09, 01:28 PM

It's not so hard to grasp when you take into account these things happen over BILLIONS of years. I mean, even if you do believe that we came from Adam and Eve, how do explain how people have different colored skin from different regions? Descendants from Adam and Eve had to EVOLVE to be able to live in certain climates/regions. So yea, I would say if someone doesn't believe in evolution, they would be stupid.
I typed out something decently long, but then AP wigged out...ugh.

Anyway, basically it's weird to me to grasp the concept that we came from goo. That's not saying that it's not plausible, but it's just strange...no more strange then the idea that some spiritual being created us all, I realize that.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 01:31 PM

Being an asshole makes you stupid.
No it doesn't.

Youre refusing to see it in any other light than your own.
There is no other "light" -- evolution happens.

There are plenty of other cultures who dont believe in evolution, which means youre calling all of them stupid too.
No certain people don't believe in evolution, not "cultures." Trying to group them all together like that is quite disingenuous. Individuals within those cultures believe in evolution.

My belief is my belief, it's not hurting you or anybody else, so it shouldnt even matter.
Your desire to remain ignorant is fine - doesn't make you any less ignorant.

I mean do you go around telling Muslims that theyre stupid because they believe in Paradise? Or Buddhist's theyre stupid for thinking they'll ever reach Nirvana?
Neither of these have anything to do with evolution. You might as well have just asked me if I eat bacon.

IAPAI

05/21/09, 01:31 PM

J.C.

05/21/09, 01:33 PM

Can someone screencap Google's front page? Can't access it in Canada....

http://www.google.com/logos/missinglink.gif

IAPAI

05/21/09, 02:10 PM

http://www.google.com/logos/missinglink.gif

awesome!

J.C.

05/21/09, 02:12 PM

No it doesn't.

There is no other "light" -- evolution happens.

No certain people don't believe in evolution, not "cultures." Trying to group them altogether like that is quite disingenuous.

Your desire to remain ignorant is fine - doesn't make you any less ignorant.

Neither of these have anything to do with evolution. You might as well have just asked me if I eat bacon.

Well. Do you?

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 02:14 PM

I typed out something decently long, but then AP wigged out...ugh.

Anyway, basically it's weird to me to grasp the concept that we came from goo. That's not saying that it's not plausible, but it's just strange...no more strange then the idea that some spiritual being created us all, I realize that.It's only hard to grasp because our minds really can't fully understand how long a million, let alone the 40 million years this fossil has been in existence, is. when you start talking in that big of numbers its pretty much all the same.

and you didn't mention the second part of my post, which is the one i'm most curious about. how do people that don't believe in evolution explain how all humans aren't white skinned and blue eyed?

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 02:20 PM

uhh Biology 101: sperm and eggs are "goo" too.
And I've seen more people made from sperm and eggs than I have ribs.
My favorite quote of the day.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 02:22 PM

uhh Biology 101: sperm and eggs are "goo" too.
And I've seen more people made from sperm and eggs than I have ribs.haha great point

J.C.

05/21/09, 02:25 PM

uhh Biology 101: sperm and eggs are "goo" too.

ding ding ding

blindrider529

05/21/09, 02:26 PM

I mean, even if you do believe that we came from Adam and Eve, how do explain how people have different colored skin from different regions? Descendants from Adam and Eve had to EVOLVE to be able to live in certain climates/regions. So yea, I would say if someone doesn't believe in evolution, they would be stupid.

Macroevolution and microevolution aren't the same thing. Microevolution has to do with the change we see within a species and macroevolution has to do species evolving into new species.

The only people who may disagree with microevolution are people who don't know the difference. The evidence for microevolution seems to be absolutely undeniable. I'm not sure, but I think that even creationists believe in microevolution. If they don't they probably either don't know what it is, or really are stupid. haha

J.C.

05/21/09, 02:27 PM

I know how you feel. Believing the Earth is flat doesn't make me stupid. Wrong? Sure. But stupid?

Viruses are one of the most comprehendable examples we have of evolution. Their survival is reliant on their ability to mutate. And why are they forced to mutate? In the same way they're seeking to survive, so do the hosts the viruses prey on. Are you at all familiar with the immune system? Yeah, it's purpose is to adapt to combat the virus. As more time goes on, our immune systems(collectively as a species) will be exposed to diseases we haven't seen before. As a result our bodies will develop new ways to combat the new diseases, thus strengthening our immune systems and making them capable of warding off viruses they weren't strong enough to ward off in the past. And you know what that's fucking called? Evolution.

DBQRy0aV3P4

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 02:30 PM

Macroevolution and microevolution aren't the same thing. Microevolution has to do with the change we see within a species and macroevolution has to do species evolving into new species.

The only people who may disagree with microevolution are people who don't know the difference. The evidence for microevolution seems to be absolutely undeniable. I'm not sure, but I think that even creationists believe in microevolution. If they don't they probably either don't know what it is, or really are stupid. hahai would think that all evolution is a series of microevolutions over a long period of time. big changes like completely different species doesn't happen over night. a big black monilith doesn't just appear and we advance as a species.

J.C.

05/21/09, 02:33 PM

i would think that all evolution is a series of microevolutions. big changes like completely different species doesn't happen over night. a big black monilith doesn't just appear and we advance as a species.

Yup. Creationists approach evolution like it's Pokemon.

http://www.legendarypokemon.net/images/dp_artwork/223.png ----> http://www.rpgamer.com/games/pokemon/poke2/art/224.gif

HOW THE FUCK CAN A FISH EVOLVE INTO AN OCTOPUS THAT'S INSANE

blindrider529

05/21/09, 02:42 PM

uhh Biology 101: sperm and eggs are "goo" too.
And I've seen more people made from sperm and eggs than I have ribs.
haha excellent point.

I have much less, if any, of a "problem" with us coming from goo than I do with the idea that the goo came from nothing and by nothing and created everything. The amount of time it would take isn't anywhere near as important to me as what triggered the events in the first place.

blindrider529

05/21/09, 03:07 PM

i would think that all evolution is a series of microevolutions over a long period of time. big changes like completely different species doesn't happen over night. a big black monilith doesn't just appear and we advance as a species.
Well, that's the idea. Microevolution and the idea that species adapt and change within their environment and species is just plain undeniable. It's seen all over the place, even in real time. The evidence for it is often incorrectly considered as conclusive evidence of macro. The bigger question, and the one that is a lot more "controversial" if you will, is how strong is the evidence that species have actually changed into new species via this process.

The evidence for variation within a species needs no more attestation, but it alone is only a teeeeny fragment of the evidence for species evolving into new species. On it's own it doesn't even come close to logically following that all species evolution via a common ancestor, etc. That's why the fossil records and this fossil are of such important. There are many pieces to the puzzle.

brenByah

05/21/09, 03:55 PM

I believe in evolution to some extent, perhaps a certain bird developed a greater wingspan over time, or something of that nature. Not buying the whole monkey to man idea yet.

J.C.

05/21/09, 04:02 PM

I believe in evolution to some extent, perhaps a certain bird developed a greater wingspan over time, or something of that nature. Not buying the whole monkey to man idea yet.

That's some pretty advanced stuff for the Kansas Board of Ed.

brenByah

05/21/09, 04:05 PM

That's some pretty advanced stuff for the Kansas Board of Ed.

I don't reflect every view of the state I live in.

zion the lion

05/21/09, 04:33 PM

How about instead of fighting, you inform us all of why you don't believe in evolution or what you do believe in.

I suck at putting my thoughts into words but I'll try to explain it better than I have. I dont believe in the evolution they teach in schools (that being said, I didnt learn much about evolution in either public or christian school). I would rather believe in something completely different. Now I do believe in genetic mutations, for example, I'm black, and my aunt (before she died) had gorgeous red hair and ocean blue eyes, and my hair (before I dye it) has blondish red splotches all over. I can look at my friends and see that their blue eyes are the result of humans evolving because we all started out with brown eyes. I know (and believe) that species evolve within their own species...I just dont believe in the idea that's in the begining in The Land Before Time (just an example). I hope that makes better sense.

Duexy

05/21/09, 04:36 PM

Ahh, so you don't believe in evolution but you believe in evolution.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 04:40 PM

I've posted this before (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), but it looks like it needs repeating:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory" (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html); Discover, May 1981

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml), American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

brenByah

05/21/09, 04:50 PM

I tend to think that God created evolution. Sure, that conflicts with the Bible, but the bible wasn't written by God or Jesus for that matter, but a group of devout followers. I look at it as a guide to living, not so much an absolute truth. Though I realize my view here is not common in either circle. Who knows what the truth is, after all, Darwin believed in God. To each his own, I guess :shrug:

zion the lion

05/21/09, 04:57 PM

Ahh, so you don't believe in evolution but you believe in evolution.

Just like my friend was born in Okinawa, it doesnt mean I believe in Japan.

I think evolution is way deeper than people give it credit for. And the only way I can think of describing it is like the onion with its layers. I just watched shrek by the way so thats why I used the onion.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 04:59 PM

I suck at putting my thoughts into words but I'll try to explain it better than I have. I dont believe in the evolution they teach in schools (that being said, I didnt learn much about evolution in either public or christian school). I would rather believe in something completely different. Now I do believe in genetic mutations, for example, I'm black, and my aunt (before she died) had gorgeous red hair and ocean blue eyes, and my hair (before I dye it) has blondish red splotches all over. I can look at my friends and see that their blue eyes are the result of humans evolving because we all started out with brown eyes. I know (and believe) that species evolve within their own species...I just dont believe in the idea that's in the begining in The Land Before Time (just an example). I hope that makes better sense.You are basically stating your own ignorance here by saying you don't believe in evolution, but at the same time you really don't know much about it besides what you see in childrens movies...

:-|

Evolution is evolution and if you believe in one type of evolution how is it so much of a stretch to believe in other forms of evolution? There is plenty of evidence to even prove that even things that are depected in The Land Before Time are possible. That species have made a jump from being aquatic animals to land animals (or vise versa).

example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1010_jamaicaseacow.html

zion the lion

05/21/09, 05:00 PM

zion the lion

05/21/09, 05:12 PM

You are basically stating your own ignorance here by saying you don't believe in evolution, but at the same time you really don't know much about it besides what you see in childrens movies...

:-|

Evolution is evolution and if you believe in one type of evolution how is it so much of a stretch to believe in other forms of evolution? There is plenty of evidence to even prove that even things that are depected in The Land Before Time are possible. That species have made a jump from being aquatic animals to land animals (or vise versa).

example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1010_jamaicaseacow.html

If you look at the last sentence of the post you quoted, you would realize I said the land before time was just an example I know more than what I've seen in movies. The schools I went to didnt teach about genetic mutations that go on within a species that make eye color or skin color different.

It's just as easy to say theres a difference in races so how is it so much of a stretch to jump from just skin color to saying that one race is the dominate one? It's a big stretch to me. I believe that humans started out as humans, no matter how much we evolve we arent going to grow a pair of wings, or an pair of tusks.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 05:15 PM

If you look at the last sentence of the post you quoted, you would realize I said the land before time was just an example I know more than what I've seen in movies. The schools I went to didnt teach about genetic mutations that go on within a species that make eye color or skin color different.

It's just as easy to say theres a difference in races so how is it so much of a stretch to jump from just skin color to saying that one race is the dominate one? It's a big stretch to me. I believe that humans started out as humans, no matter how much we evolve we arent going to grow a pair of wings, or an pair of tusks.But do you believe that other animals have evolved like fish to amphibians, or reptiles to mammals?

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 05:21 PM

If you look at the last sentence of the post you quoted, you would realize I said the land before time was just an example I know more than what I've seen in movies. The schools I went to didnt teach about genetic mutations that go on within a species that make eye color or skin color different.

It's just as easy to say theres a difference in races so how is it so much of a stretch to jump from just skin color to saying that one race is the dominate one? It's a big stretch to me. I believe that humans started out as humans, no matter how much we evolve we arent going to grow a pair of wings, or an pair of tusks.

But you've seen the fossils of early humans right? And you've seen how the bone structures have changed - right? And how our internal organs have evolved with diet, right? Species variation alone is evolutionary.

zion the lion

05/21/09, 05:21 PM

But do you believe that other animals have evolved like fish to amphibians, or reptiles to mammals?

Can I just ask why people have taken such a weird interest in my lack of belief in "evolution"? Honestly what I believe goes a lot further than just that (not a religion or anything), it goes deep into nihilism/existentialism and would sound ridiculous (and would most likely be mocked) on this website.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 05:26 PM

Can I just ask why people have taken such a weird interest in my lack of belief in "evolution"? Honestly what I believe goes a lot further than just that (not a religion or anything), it goes deep into nihilism/existentialism and would sound ridiculous (and would most likely be mocked) on this website.
After listening to you talk about biology - the idea of you trying to discuss nihilism makes my head hurt.

And the reason is simple: If someone says 1+1 doesn't equal 2 -- there's an interest.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 05:29 PM

Can I just ask why people have taken such a weird interest in my lack of belief in "evolution"? Honestly what I believe goes a lot further than just that (not a religion or anything), it goes deep into nihilism/existentialism and would sound ridiculous (and would most likely be mocked) on this website.Because you are the only one in here giving a differing opinion and i'm trying to understand it.

i mean, we see species to species evolution every day (what do you think animal breeding is? we created hundreds of species of dogs for specific looks and jobs just in the last thousand or so years.) I just don't get what makes the human species different.

also, you didn't answer my question.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 05:31 PM

Because you are the only one in here giving a differing opinion and i'm trying to understand it.

i mean, we see inter-species evolution every day (what do you think animal breeding is? we created hundreds of species of dogs for specific looks and jobs just in the last thousand or so years.) I just don't get what makes the human species different.
http://s-ec-sm.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/3/11/11/also-this-photograph-of-jesus-helping-a-baby-dinos-8969-1236784374-24.jpg

zion the lion

05/21/09, 05:40 PM

After listening to you talk about biology - the idea of you trying to discuss nihilism makes my head hurt.

And the reason is simple: If someone says 1+1 doesn't equal 2 -- there's an interest.

Because you are the only one in here giving a differing opinion and i'm trying to understand it.

i mean, we see inter-species evolution every day (what do you think animal breeding is? we created hundreds of species of dogs for specific looks and jobs just in the last thousand or so years.) I just don't get what makes the human species different.

If I could explain it in a way that wouldnt make you think I'm dumber than you already think, I would. With nihilism (and even existentialism) you can go as far as to say we dont exist, and theres no proof that we do, I've combined that with experiences I've had as a child it's formed my belief in nothing.

Also if this makes any more sense, I'm on amphetamine, and mood stabilizers and anti psychotics and anti depressants(to combat the side effects of the amphetamine) which has honestly affect the way I interpret everything I hear and see. It's a shitty excuse but really I cant think of another way to explain how or why I believe in the things I do.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 05:43 PM

:hitself:

brenByah

05/21/09, 05:44 PM

As a Christian I feel like I'm supposed to be offended by this thread, but I'm really not, ha ha.

brenByah

05/21/09, 05:45 PM

Putting my views on evolution aside, existentialism isn't really related at all.

zion the lion

05/21/09, 05:52 PM

:hitself:

I'll never know what the facepalm means.

saysmydoctor

05/21/09, 05:53 PM

You know it's really simple to prove those against evolution wrong by simply looking at medicine.

The appendix sits at the end of the large intestine where the small intestine connects to it. When the human actually ate a lot of organic material, the fossil record has shown that the appendix has been much larger than it is currently, as it is the organ/portion of the large intestine that breaks down organic material. With its continued lack of use, it's slowly evolved away, gotten smaller in each mutation of the human species. Scientists predict it will slowly evolve away in the next few centuries as it is useless, and has actually become in some cases detrimental to the digestive tract.

Adaption = Evolution

Duexy

05/21/09, 06:34 PM

If I could explain it in a way that wouldnt make you think I'm dumber than you already think, I would. With nihilism (and even existentialism) you can go as far as to say we dont exist, and theres no proof that we do, I've combined that with experiences I've had as a child it's formed my belief in nothing.

Also if this makes any more sense, I'm on amphetamine, and mood stabilizers and anti psychotics and anti depressants(to combat the side effects of the amphetamine) which has honestly affect the way I interpret everything I hear and see. It's a shitty excuse but really I cant think of another way to explain how or why I believe in the things I do.

oh lou rauls, lou rauls.

zion the lion

05/21/09, 06:51 PM

oh lou rauls, lou rauls.

you know theres someone named lou rawls? A jazz musician...he's dead now.

Duexy

05/21/09, 06:52 PM

orly

zion the lion

05/21/09, 06:54 PM

orly

no i'm a complete and total liar, in fact i do believe in evolution, and i'm coming down from speed right now. Ok that was a lie.

brenByah

05/21/09, 07:10 PM

I don't even know what's going on in this thread anymore...

Duexy

05/21/09, 07:45 PM

cucumber head

blindrider529

05/21/09, 08:23 PM

i mean, we see species to species evolution every day (what do you think animal breeding is? we created hundreds of species of dogs for specific looks and jobs just in the last thousand or so years.) I just don't get what makes the human species different..
Dog breeding is not species to species. Breeding a dog with a butterfly would be species to species.

You know it's really simple to prove those against evolution wrong by simply looking at medicine.

The appendix sits at the end of the large intestine where the small intestine connects to it. When the human actually ate a lot of organic material, the fossil record has shown that the appendix has been much larger than it is currently, as it is the organ/portion of the large intestine that breaks down organic material. With its continued lack of use, it's slowly evolved away, gotten smaller in each mutation of the human species. Scientists predict it will slowly evolve away in the next few centuries as it is useless, and has actually become in some cases detrimental to the digestive tract.

Adaption = Evolution
Adaptation within a species (microevolution) is undeniable. There is no need to prove it any further. Proving that adaptation within a species happens does not give any more evidence to the idea of species to species evolution. It's beating a dead horse. The reason the fossil record is so important is because adaptation within a species does not force the conclusion of species to species evolution (macro).

Pardon me using a religious example...but it reminds me of somebody claiming that Jesus must have raised from the dead because it could be proven that his tomb was empty. Regardless of the validity of this claim, it clearly does NOT logically follow that Jesus must've raised from the dead! It could be a piece of the puzzle...but it doesn't doesn't logically follow that he was raised. They can provide all kinds of evidence from eyewitness testimony of an open tomb to pictures with dates, it does not make their case any stronger. That's obviously not a great comparison, but the point is that proving microevolution over and over again does give more evidence to macroevolution. The fossil record is what is there to prove macroevolution.

brenByah

05/21/09, 08:41 PM

This discovery wouldn't disprove creationism, it would simply debunk the time frame in which creationism claims to have taken place. It doesn't, however, disprove the idea that God or another higher being created all life forms.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 09:04 PM

Dog breeding is not species to species. Breeding a dog with a butterfly would be species to species.
a chihuahua is a different species from a mastiff. they are both in the canine family, but they are a different species. just like a horse is a different species from a zebra or a gorilla is a different species from a chimp.

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 09:06 PM

Dog breeding is not species to species. Breeding a dog with a butterfly would be species to species.
species (http://www.google.com/url?&ei=kyQWStHqOJTmsgOxkdSSDw&sig2=o2KpZhNLMAzDrTPT8JHy2w&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dspecies&ei=kyQWStHqOJTmsgOxkdSSDw&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNG7w68B-8qVD2srqhFzts7AlAAEYg): taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

Jason Tate

05/21/09, 09:08 PM

Dog breeding is not species to species. Breeding a dog with a butterfly would be species to species.

Adaptation within a species (microevolution) is undeniable. There is no need to prove it any further. Proving that adaptation within a species happens does not give any more evidence to the idea of species to species evolution. It's beating a dead horse. The reason the fossil record is so important is because adaptation within a species does not force the conclusion of species to species evolution (macro).

Pardon me using a religious example...but it reminds me of somebody claiming that Jesus must have raised from the dead because it could be proven that his tomb was empty. Regardless of the validity of this claim, it clearly does NOT logically follow that Jesus must've raised from the dead! It could be a piece of the puzzle...but it doesn't doesn't logically follow that he was raised. They can provide all kinds of evidence from eyewitness testimony of an open tomb to pictures with dates, it does not make their case any stronger. That's obviously not a great comparison, but the point is that proving microevolution over and over again does give more evidence to macroevolution. The fossil record is what is there to prove macroevolution.
There is already a plethora of evidence to support macroevolution. I'm unsure why you keep pretending there isn't.

Adeniz19

05/21/09, 09:10 PM

breeding a dog and an insect would be a class to class evolution, which has also happened and there is also plenty of proof of. (fish becoming amphibious, reptiles to mammals, etc)

blindrider529

05/21/09, 10:58 PM

a chihuahua is a different species from a mastiff. they are both in the canine family, but they are a different species. just like a horse is a different species from a zebra or a gorilla is a different species from a chimp.
species (http://www.google.com/url?&ei=kyQWStHqOJTmsgOxkdSSDw&sig2=o2KpZhNLMAzDrTPT8JHy2w&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dspecies&ei=kyQWStHqOJTmsgOxkdSSDw&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNG7w68B-8qVD2srqhFzts7AlAAEYg): taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
I'm sorry. I believe what I was looking for was class to class. In any case, cross breeding a horse with a butterfly, or a hummingbird with an alligator, or a chimp with a human would be a much better way to give evidence for macro (as opposed to micro) evolution than breeding different species of dogs. We know about interbreeding. It's not news or any more evidence of macroevolution than it's ever been. It's still a giant leap to get to macroevolution. It could be an indicator, but it's still not quite the same as the breeding examples I just gave.

There is already a plethora of evidence to support macroevolution. I'm unsure why you keep pretending there isn't.

I'm not! I'm not even arguing one way or the other in terms of the validity of macroevolution. I am just pointing out that a lot of the evidence for microevolution seems to be credited as evidence for macroevolution by default. Probably 95% or more of the time people discuss proof of macroevolution they are really talking about evidence of microevolution. If anything I'm trying to say that the reason that the fossil record (and this find) are so important because microevolution on it's own does not logically lead to macroevolution. I think people should focus more on the fossil record when discussions of evolution occur. Microevolution may certainly be a positive piece of the puzzle and may well be great evidence, but on it's own it doesn't weigh enough. That's why fossils are so important. Everyone, including Charles Darwin agrees on that.

brenByah

05/21/09, 11:14 PM

I'd like to hear Darwin's thoughts today, he was a puzzling man.

AP_Punk

05/21/09, 11:33 PM

fossils were just something the Jews buried in 1924!

deanster321

05/22/09, 01:45 AM

It looks like the alien from 20 Million Miles To Earth.

Mercy Medical

05/22/09, 05:16 AM

uhh Biology 101: sperm and eggs are "goo" too.
And I've seen more people made from sperm and eggs than I have ribs.
I understand that and even that is a crazy concept to grasp. I mean, if you think about it at the core, it's sort of difficult to wrap your head around.

And there's no need to be condescending, I am by no means a creationist...

It's only hard to grasp because our minds really can't fully understand how long a million, let alone the 40 million years this fossil has been in existence, is. when you start talking in that big of numbers its pretty much all the same.

and you didn't mention the second part of my post, which is the one i'm most curious about. how do people that don't believe in evolution explain how all humans aren't white skinned and blue eyed?
Oh, I have no idea...I'm not one of those people! lol But that brings up a very good question.

Personally, I believe in a hybrid evolution/creation theory...in the sense that I think it's quite plausible that God did not create this earth in the literal sense that the Bible describes. I mean, to me it's quite possible that 7 days in God's eyes is nothing like 7 days in ours considering (if you believe in God) he's this omnipotent being that is capable of seeing everything past and future and that time to him/her/it must seem completely different then time to us. So, to me, it's quite plausible that God created the small aspects that led to the big bang or that led to piles of goo crawling out of the ocean and eventually becoming man. But then again, I also recognize that it's completely plausible that my beliefs in God will be false and the Bible is just one big silly book. I suppose I'm open to the idea of just about anything...

Just like my friend was born in Okinawa, it doesnt mean I believe in Japan.

I think evolution is way deeper than people give it credit for. And the only way I can think of describing it is like the onion with its layers. I just watched shrek by the way so thats why I used the onion.What the fuck....?

As a Christian I feel like I'm supposed to be offended by this thread, but I'm really not, ha ha.
I don't think you necessarily need to feel like you should be offended by this thread. I think Christianity and evolution can coexist. I think it's just all the Christians who claim it can't put pressure on the ones who claim it can and make them feel bad for believing that. To each his own, honestly.

jules_x

05/22/09, 05:40 AM

Being an asshole makes you stupid.

Wrong. Watch House M.D.

wrppdarndyrfngr

05/22/09, 06:01 AM

That's some pretty advanced stuff for the Kansas Board of Ed.

HOLY LOL

(and sad but true :-( ; glad i went to private school up until college)

I don't reflect every view of the state I live in.

I say this everyday and shake my head.

brenByah

05/22/09, 10:56 AM

I don't think you necessarily need to feel like you should be offended by this thread. I think Christianity and evolution can coexist. I think it's just all the Christians who claim it can't put pressure on the ones who claim it can and make them feel bad for believing that. To each his own, honestly.

I'm not offended at all. Like I said before, I believe God created evolution. Sure these discoveries don't coincide with the Bible as far as the timeline is concerned, but it's important to keep in mind that the Bible was written by a few devout followers and not Christ or God himself. I don't really think either belief creationism or evolution should be smashed down. It seems like when debates like these arise everyone's so hell bent on knocking someone else's beliefs down more so than defending what they believe in. I'm not talking about this particular discussion in this thread, but the creationism vs. evolution debate in general. Darwin came up with the idea, yet spent most of his life a man of faith that believed in God as the creator. Who knows :shrug:

saysmydoctor

05/22/09, 11:01 AM

Wrong. Watch House M.D.
Fiction is fictional.

Animalhill

05/22/09, 11:12 AM

fossils were just something the Jews buried in 1924!
Hey, hey, hey... watch the Jew jokes buddy! Don't make me start pegging spare change at you

zion the lion

05/22/09, 11:32 AM

What the fuck....?

I wasnt being serious, its actually something that I joke around about (like an inside joke) to a friend who I knew was lurking around here. I know Japan exists...I'm not that crazy.

jules_x

05/22/09, 11:33 AM

Fiction is fictional.

As good as all fiction need inspiration.
There are people like House. I bet he or she hates all of us.

Mercy Medical

05/22/09, 11:41 AM

I wasnt being serious, its actually something that I joke around about (like an inside joke) to a friend who I knew was lurking around here. I know Japan exists...I'm not that crazy.
You realize that sarcasm is sort of lost via the internet, don't you?

batmannj

05/22/09, 02:33 PM

Great. Another thread in the Politics forum that turns into "suck it creationalists/Christians" and sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization.

I honestly don't care if this whole macro evolution thing happened or not, I still believe in God and I still belive that Jesus Christ died for our sins. My faith doesn't depend on whether or not we developed from a tree shrew or if God himself created us.

Plus this is a pretty big scientific discovery, why must we put down each other before anything is even said? Why not discuss the ramifications this? Or what this could mean if what they expect this fossil to explain does so? Oh. I forgot. On AP, the only way to make an arguement is to belittle people who believe different things than you.

J.C.

05/22/09, 02:52 PM

I honestly don't care if this whole macro evolution thing happened or not, I still believe in God and I still belive that Jesus Christ died for our sins. My faith doesn't depend on whether or not we developed from a tree shrew or if God himself created us.

For the sake of devil's advocacy, what would it take?

batmannj

05/22/09, 02:57 PM

For the sake of devil's advocacy, what would it take?
What do you mean?

J.C.

05/22/09, 03:04 PM

What do you mean?

What discovery/revelation would it take for you to completely question the verity of your faith?

batmannj

05/22/09, 03:08 PM

What discovery/revelation would it take for you to completely question the verity of your faith?
That's a hard question to answer. I am not sure if there would be anything, I like to think that my faith in God isn't totally based on what is in this world, but I honestly have no idea without there being some kind of discovery that could change my mind. If we were created by God and we came from some other animal I can deal with that and I don't really understand why people get so upset if there is evidence that is contrary to their beliefs.

Jason Tate

05/22/09, 03:25 PM

Adeniz19

05/22/09, 03:46 PM

saysmydoctor

05/22/09, 04:43 PM

A sweeping generalization is what you are doing about AP posters.

batmannj

05/22/09, 06:57 PM

I didn't see any generalizations.
People saying that Christians will still try and justify that evolution doesn't exist. I have not seen one Christian come in here and say "I don't believe this, the fossil was planted by whoever and is fake" The only people who have said that are mocking Christians.
I am not, or have I tried to turn this into religious topic. The people who are denying evolution have turned this into it. I believe both can coexist, in some form, but it's hard to deny something when there is overwhelming evidence of it's existence.
I agree with you, I can't deny any of it based on the scientific evidence and my religious beliefs don't hinge on whether or not we have evolved from whatever or if we were created by God. I don't really care how humans got here, all I believe is that God is there for us.

batmannj

05/22/09, 06:59 PM

A sweeping generalization is what you are doing about AP posters.
To be totally honest, that is true. I guess I should say that there is a good number of people on this website who feel like the only way to express their viewpoint is to try and make the other look like a fool or insult them. There are plenty of people who argue things in a respectful manner.

saysmydoctor

05/22/09, 07:09 PM

I agree with you that there is some mockery. You have to bare in mind that this board is pretty liberal one. Most of the posters liberal pinko socialists pseudo-communists hyphenated-leftists (I had fun mocking myself here). I also think a lot of this stems from the fact that we, at least from my perspective and this is how I justify my own actions, see it as the religious fundamentalists have tried to stifle and hide this information--or rather information like it--in the past from being educated simply because it counters their beliefs. The refusal to teach it in Kansas is evidence of that kind of lobbying. Those kids are being hurt academically by not coming out well-rounded. I can't think of one evolutionist--who is well-liked and respected--that would say both can't be taught. I can think of countless organizations and political activists that would try to hinder the instruction of evolution because it counters their religious views.

/excuses

batmannj

05/22/09, 07:47 PM

saysmydoctor

05/22/09, 07:57 PM

Good points all around. I do think that the lack of common sense in terms of admitting that at least in some form evolution definitely exsists. People arguing that evolution doesn't exsist are either speaking in too broad of terms or they are not looking at the simple pieces of evidence in front of them.
I think it's stubbornness and discomfort and fear, in that they've placed a lot of faith in God and the Bible and when evidence comes about that proves it wrong, or at least chips away at some of its points, it frightens them. They, by believing in it, may be failing a test of their faith by God. I think the Bible, in some cases, frightens people to believe what it says. So it's easier just to deny things that rise up in contradiction to the Bible.

At least, that's how I explain the irrationality of the denials.

zion the lion

05/22/09, 08:06 PM

Has it ever crossed anybody's mind that maybe some of us who dont believe in evolution (and by that I mean macro not micro) dont base it in religion and dont believe in god?

batmannj

05/22/09, 08:07 PM

I think it's stubbornness and discomfort and fear, in that they've placed a lot of faith in God and the Bible and when evidence comes about that proves it wrong, or at least chips away at some of its points, it frightens them. They, by believing in it, may be failing a test of their faith by God. I think the Bible, in some cases, frightens people to believe what it says. So it's easier just to deny things that rise up in contradiction to the Bible.

At least, that's how I explain the irrationality of the denials.
It makes sense. Being a Christian myself who used to say that evolution 'wasn't real,' I used to just say that I simply didn't believe in it because it was contrary to what I was taught when I was younger. But like I said before, it doesn't enrich my beliefs one way or the other if macro evolution is what really happened. Obviously that is where all the evidence is pointing, but if it really happened that, that is fine. I think some fundamentalists just need to focus on how they can better serve their God instead of nit picking little things like evolution, the Da Vinci Code, or any other host of things that has been complained about in the past.

Adeniz19

05/22/09, 08:16 PM

Has it ever crossed anybody's mind that maybe some of us who dont believe in evolution (and by that I mean macro not micro) dont base it in religion and dont believe in god?care to inform us what they do base it on?

zion the lion

05/22/09, 08:26 PM

care to inform us what they do base it on?

I have no idea what other people would base their belief or disbelief in evolution on, but I base it off of a major crisis that happened in my life that changed the way I see everything. It wouldnt make sense if I even tried to explain it other than it has nothing to do with God.

But why do you believe in macro evolution?

Adeniz19

05/22/09, 10:14 PM

I have no idea what other people would base their belief or disbelief in evolution on, but I base it off of a major crisis that happened in my life that changed the way I see everything. It wouldnt make sense if I even tried to explain it other than it has nothing to do with God.

But why do you believe in macro evolution?maybe because of the mounds and mounds of evidence to support it?

zion the lion

05/22/09, 10:17 PM

maybe because of the mounds and mounds of evidence to support it?

Hmm ok. Thats nice.

QuikTrig

05/22/09, 10:51 PM

this is the weirdest fucking thread.

Praetor

05/25/09, 11:07 AM

Special on this tonight on The History Channel. 9PM for me, I think. I can't wait to watch this.

open mind

05/25/09, 06:25 PM

the theories of evolution and creationism don't contradict one another if you're not an idiot.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 07:22 AM

there's no such thing as a missing link. how can you say this proves anything?

Machu505

06/20/09, 06:07 PM

What?

BryterJonah

06/20/09, 07:01 PM

Yea, it's interesting to know how this whole crazy place was created, but in the end we're all going to die and we may go to heaven/hell we may just rot in the ground, but this kind of stuff really doesn't matter...

Such an overused, worthless excuse for lacking curiosity or motive.

I hate people who find the obvious fact that we're all going to die as a reason to live blankly passing everything off as trivial. Why not live your life in pursuit of your interests? Why not take pride in being a forgotten gem in humanity's past? I wish people could see pass these defense mechanisms and live with some self serving purpose.

BryterJonah

06/20/09, 07:02 PM

the theories of evolution and creationism don't contradict one another if you're not an idiot.
Oh, so that's what all those scientists were doing wrong.

Sweet point, bro.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 07:03 PM

this is one freakin' fossil. ONE. plus, people can perceive fossils to be whatever they want... it's happened plenty of times before.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 07:07 PM

Rejectin' science. Up the fucking punx.

Adeniz19

06/20/09, 07:20 PM

How do you perceive a 47 million year old creature who has opposable thumbs, the same basic ankle structure, and same amount of teeth as humans? Coincidence?

open mind

06/20/09, 07:25 PM

Oh, so that's what all those scientists were doing wrong.

Sweet point, bro.

huh?

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 07:26 PM

God makes monkeys and bones to test our fate. And invented time as well, to really throw us a curve ball?

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 08:18 PM

the idea that we evolved from primates because we've got the same basic bone structure is pretty dumb... so people can and are perceiving something that really means nothing to mean something it doesn't.

there's relatively little that science can prove... that's why all the theories and experiments and what not are always being refined.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 08:20 PM

It's not dumb at all, unless you reject logic.

The whole 48th in Education label for North Carolina is beginning to make a lot of sense.

BryterJonah

06/20/09, 08:22 PM

Somebody really takes satisfaction in using the word 'perceive'.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 08:38 PM

Somebody really takes satisfaction in using the word 'perceive'.

pointless post

just cause two things are similar doesn't mean one came from each other. just hopeful but meaningless extrapolation. nothing in that article was even definitive.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 08:39 PM

It's not dumb at all, unless you reject logic.

The whole 48th in Education label for North Carolina is beginning to make a lot of sense.

way to attack the straw man

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 08:50 PM

way to attack the straw man
That was actually an ad hominem or me poisoning the well, but I see your point; that was uncalled for.

You still have no idea what you are talking about though.

J.C.

06/20/09, 08:53 PM

You can't possibly be looking for an intelligent discussion when you're operating on the premise that there's very little science can prove. Science isn't what's flawed, it's the humans trying to decipher it's laws who are flawed.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 08:55 PM

That was actually an ad hominem or me poisoning the well, but I see your point; that was uncalled for.

You still have no idea what you are talking about though.

why? cause i disagree with the majority of people on this site?

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 08:57 PM

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:01 PM

why? cause i disagree with the majority of people on this site?
No, because you are presenting a counter-argument to an argument that isn't being presented. 'Come from' implies it just happened. No one is saying that. They are arguing (and have pretty much successfully proven) that over a long period of time, a serious of genetic mutations and adaptation have lead to the homo sapiens. Also, you deny evolution has occurred yet your body in itself is living proof of evolution. Our homo sapien ancestors actually utilized the appendix, it was further extension of the long intestine that broke organic material. Over time it has continuously shrunk as the body has adapted slowly to lack of heavy organic material we digest as a population.

Human evolution is very easy to believe, especially when the bones of these different species show similar cavities in the brain, similar skeletal figures, opposable thumbs, bipedalism, the ability to speak is also noted in some early species. Denying evolution is just downright ridiculous.

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:05 PM

if the people doing the science are flawed, then it follows that the science is flawed

Yeah, this argument's going to be far too complex for you.

You said there's little science can prove. Science can prove anything. Science isn't just what we know, it's also what we don't know.

What scientific fact are you prepared to argue against the validity of?

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:05 PM

if the people doing the science are flawed, then it follows that the science is flawed
No, it doesn't.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:06 PM

easy to believe doesn't mean it's right.

the evolution of the insides of a person isn't the same the evolution of one species to another.

and nobody's proven evolution.

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:08 PM

and nobody's proven evolution.

Prove to me the existence of God.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:09 PM

Yeah, this argument's going to be far too complex for you.

You said there's little science can prove. Science can prove anything. Science isn't just what we know, it's also what we don't know.

What scientific fact are you prepared to argue against the validity of?

science
isn't what we don't know- it's the process of trying to decipher what we don't know based on what we do know.

BryterJonah

06/20/09, 09:10 PM

Nobody's proven, or has yet to present evidence for proof of creationism.

Then again, it's easy to believe something when believing is all the proof you need.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:12 PM

Prove to me the existence of God.

that's how you counter a claim that evolution is unproven?

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:12 PM

easy to believe doesn't mean it's right.

the evolution of the insides of a person isn't the same the evolution of one species to another.

and nobody's proven evolution.
Do you even know what evolution, because you aren't showing that you do.

Also, evolution has been pretty easily confirmed. Mutations in bacteria is proof that evolution exists. Anthropogenesis seeks to prove HOW it happened, not whether it happened. It's obvious it happened.

BryterJonah

06/20/09, 09:15 PM

that's how you counter a claim that evolution is unproven?
It's a very reasonable counter as it questions the lack of substance behind your logic.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:15 PM

Science is all just theories. If I jump, I may not come back down. Newton's a fucking idiot.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:16 PM

Do you even know what evolution, because you aren't showing that you do.

Also, evolution has been pretty easily confirmed. Mutations in bacteria is proof that evolution exists. Anthropogenesis seeks to prove HOW it happened, not whether it happened. It's obvious it happened.

i KNOW bacterial mutations happen all the time. i have yet to figure out how that means our ancestors are monkeys.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:19 PM

It's a very reasonable counter as it questions the lack of substance behind your logic.

no it's not. questioning the substance behind a totally separate idea doesn't alter the validity of another idea

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:19 PM

that's how you counter a claim that evolution is unproven?

Evolution is proven. You're arguing a separate concept, which is macro vs. micro evolution. That's a legitimate argument currently up for debate within the scientific community.

You're holding steady to your belief that marco-evolution doesn't exist because it hasn't been fully proven. That's a perfectably acceptable position to take: that you want undeniable proof before you accept it's validity. That's logically consistent. Now, show me the undeniable proof that God exists.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:21 PM

i KNOW bacterial mutations happen all the time. i have yet to figure out how that means our ancestors are monkeys.
Sexual recombination, mutations, gene flow, natural selection, genetic drift. This can all be learned in a high school bio class, rereading your notes (like I am now). Evolution is scientific fact. The only disputed thing is where exactly humans came from and scientists, noticing the AMAZINGLY numerous amounts of similarities between us and monkeys, inquired into it more, found evidence in archaeological digs that have strengthened their hypotheses.

Ever heard of common descent?

BryterJonah

06/20/09, 09:22 PM

i KNOW bacterial mutations happen all the time. i have yet to figure out how that means our ancestors are monkeys.
Read some books, use some Google.

And apes are not monkeys.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:23 PM

sorry for being unclear. my bad.

God's existence can't be proven with human reasoning. you either belive, or you chose not to. i've obviously chosen to believe.

tommy's ghost

06/20/09, 09:26 PM

sorry for being unclear. my bad.

God's existence can't be proven with human reasoning. you either belive, or you chose not to. i've obviously chosen to believe.

I think this is how every theological debate ends.

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:27 PM

sorry for being unclear. my bad.

God's existence can't be proven with human reasoning. you either belive, or you chose not to. i've obviously chosen to believe.

Why not choose to believe you can fly?

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:29 PM

Evolution is proven. You're arguing a separate concept, which is macro vs. micro evolution. That's a legitimate argument currently up for debate within the scientific community.

You're holding steady to your belief that marco-evolution doesn't exist because it hasn't been fully proven. That's a perfectably acceptable position to take: that you want undeniable proof before you accept it's validity. That's logically consistent. Now, show me the undeniable proof that God exists.
Exactly. I also think you are misrepresenting what scientists are claiming. I don't think any scientists believes we are direct descendants of monkeys, rather are searching for a common ancestor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Humanevolutionchart.png

They are implying we are relatives. That's fairly obvious.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:29 PM

I think this is how every theological debate ends.
what's wrong with that?

science isn't the end-all-be-all

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:32 PM

Why not choose to believe you can fly?

for the same reason i don't choose to believe in macro-evolution

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:32 PM

what's wrong with that?

science isn't the end-all-be-all

Again.

What scientific fact are you willing to question the validity of?

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:39 PM

Again.

What scientific fact are you willing to question the validity of?

i'm not a scientist, ok? but science is always changing, always being refined. at one point, meat was "known" to grow maggots out of nowhere, yes? my point is that you can't always rely on flawed human logic to determine what is true and what isn't. truth exists apart from scientific reasoning, science just attempts to unveil it.

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:41 PM

for the same reason i don't chose to believe in macro-evolution

Because of scientific evidence? But you said science isn't the end-all-be-all. Perhaps you haven't been doing it right. Maybe if you fully commit to trying to fly, it'll happen. Scientific laws are just subjective, right?

What's the extent of your belief in God? How old is the Earth? Where did humans come from?

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:42 PM

tommy's ghost

06/20/09, 09:42 PM

what's wrong with that?

science isn't the end-all-be-all

What's wrong with that is that you give up on your discussion and say that you believe in what you believe because you choose to believe in it. That's not a solid closing statement.

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:44 PM

i'm not a scientist, ok? but science is always changing, always being refined. at one point, meat was "known" to grow maggots out of nowhere, yes? my point is that you can't always rely on flawed human logic to determine what is true and what isn't. truth exists apart from scientific reasoning, science just attempts to unveil it.

Those would be human errors, not flaws of science. There are scientific laws of the universe. They themselves are not questionable. Things that occur will occur for a reason.

You have a belief that science isn't the end-all-be-all. That's fine. What is your proof? Your evidence is what? What scientific fact is not true? You keep saying this and I'm waiting to hear the basis for this belief.

brenByah

06/20/09, 09:45 PM

What's wrong with that is that you give up on your discussion and say that you believe in what you believe because you choose to believe in it. That's not a solid closing statement.

Is there really a need for a discussion of God's existance in this thread?

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:47 PM

Science changing and being refined is bad a thing? I'd rather they improve on something and keep inquiring? If that didn't happen, we wouldn't be having this discussion on my laptop over this Internet, which I accessing wirelessly.

the fact that it's being refined means that it's presently imperfect. why would you wanna base your beliefs on something that's constantly changing.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 09:49 PM

the fact that it's being refined means that it's presently imperfect. why would you wanna base your beliefs on something that's constantly changing.
Like I always do, whenever anybody questions the validity of science, I will point out that as you sit here questioning science, I'm willing to bet with confidence that you are mostly vaccinated.

Without scientific inquiry and development, those vaccines would never have been created and saved lives.

tommy's ghost

06/20/09, 09:49 PM

Is there really a need for a discussion of God's existance in this thread?

existence*

No. I consider these types of discussions utterly useless; but if you're going to do it, do it fucking well.

Adeniz19

06/20/09, 09:52 PM

and nobody's proven evolution.what do you mean nobodies proven evolution? there have been dozens and dozens of fossils found showing the evolution of the genus homo to where it is today.

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

just because you decide to look past it doesn't mean it's not there.

that's just human evolution. there is so many documented cases of evolution occurring in so many different species, i don't even know where to start.

brenByah

06/20/09, 09:52 PM

existence*

No. I consider these types of discussions utterly useless; but if you're going to do it, do it fucking well.

Fair enough, I just didn't think it was a debate that really needed to happen in this thread. Plus those debates are usually a big headache that go nowhere.

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:53 PM

Is there really a need for a discussion of God's existance in this thread?

When you aren't holding everything up to the same burden of evidence, yes.

It's intellectually dishonest to say you can't believe in the existence of macro-evolution because there's not enough evidence, but then claim you can believe in the existence of God with zero evidence provided to support that. Either evidence matters or it doesn't.

And he pretty much admitted to the intellectual inconsistency when he claimed 'God is beyond reasoning' or whatever it was he said.

zion the lion

06/20/09, 09:53 PM

Ok if youre arguing about science, shouldnt you all keep in mind that nothing is an absolute truth?

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 09:54 PM

Adeniz19

06/20/09, 09:55 PM

the fact that it's being refined means that it's presently imperfect. why would you wanna base your beliefs on something that's constantly changing.are you seriously trying to argue that gaining more knowledge is a bad thing?

tommy's ghost

06/20/09, 09:55 PM

Fair enough, I just didn't think it was a debate that really needed to happen in this thread. Plus those debates are usually a big headache that go nowhere.

It didn't need to happen, but it was fated to. C'mon, evidence disputing creationism = theological debate kindling.

J.C.

06/20/09, 09:57 PM

the fact that it's being refined means that it's presently imperfect. why would you wanna base your beliefs on something that's constantly changing.

Our understanding of the world is being constantly refined. Not everything pertaining to scientific studies is fact. That's why we have theories. Theories have yet to be proven as fact. You're the one here claiming science(I assume you mean actual facts) is flawed. If you believe that, you have to have a basis for that belief. So tell me, what scientific fact are you questioning the validity of?

brenByah

06/20/09, 10:01 PM

When you aren't holding everything up to the same burden of evidence, yes.

It's intellectually dishonest to say you can't believe in the existence of macro-evolution because there's not enough evidence, but then claim you can believe in the existence of God with zero evidence provided to support that. Either evidence matters or it doesn't.

And he pretty much admitted to the intellectual inconsistency when he claimed 'God is beyond reasoning' or whatever it was he said.

I just meant that I didn't feel that debating if there was or wasn't a God really pertained to an evolution thread. Proof of Evolution would only disprove the time line established in creationism, but not the existence of God.

Scientific evidence is a strange thing (I'm not saying I don't believe in the theory of evolution). There's certain things that have been proven, yet much of the evidence is interpreted in many different ways. It's always been that way and always will be, we can just hope many scientists come to a common consensus. I think we can all agree that evolution exists on some scale, though some may not agree to what extent it exists (micro, macro, etc.)

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 10:01 PM

are you seriously trying to argue that gaining more knowledge is a bad thing?

how do you get that impression?

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 10:04 PM

i just said they were human flaws...

so the way you define it, you're correct- no scientific fact is untrue. but macro-evolution is still not proven- it's a theory that has to be tested in the light what is known to be true, not speculation on what may be true.
No, JC actually said that. Your claim has been to say that science is flawed. Science is perfect. Human inquiry into the understanding of science is what is flawed. So that's why when we humans revisit our own inquiries based on new discoveries, etc, things change. I'd like to know why that is a problem.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 10:04 PM

So tell me, what scientific fact are you questioning the validity of?
post #211

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 10:05 PM

how do you get that impression?
Because that's what you've been complaining about.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 10:05 PM

post #211
Are you paying attention? Macroevolution isn't fact, it is theory. We've conceded that.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 10:07 PM

No, JC actually said that.

post #198

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 10:09 PM

Are you paying attention? Macroevolution isn't fact, it is theory. We've conceded that.

i dunno.

i'm going to bed

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 10:09 PM

post #198
Ok, so you echoed in agreement JC's initial point where he contradicted you over your claims about science. He was the first to say it was human inquiry and logic that was flawed, not science.

I am still waiting for you question the validity of a scientific fact.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 10:09 PM

i dunno.

i'm going to bed
Excellent.

Sleep tight.

BryterJonah

06/20/09, 10:11 PM

I'm finally utilizing the ignore function. These people are like maggots eating at my insides.

tommy's ghost

06/20/09, 10:12 PM

Excellent.

Sleep tight.

Now, wasn't that productive?

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/20/09, 10:12 PM

sorry i suck at arguing online... i need to do it verbally

and i couldn't keep up with everyone, so it was hard to make the thing flow

Adeniz19

06/20/09, 10:31 PM

how do you get that impression?why do you think science and theories are always changing? because we gain more knowledge of the world and how it works. you are basically saying learning is pointless because what we learn will just change later down the road. it's an extremely ignorant viewpoint to have.

bigeazy

06/20/09, 10:38 PM

I'm a Christian and thought the discovery of Ida was pretty freakin cool (science is my second love). she's not the missing link so much as one of many missing links.

Personally I think that the theory of evolution and intelligent design are telling the same story, it's just that they're saying it in two different languages that people think they contradict.

saysmydoctor

06/20/09, 10:51 PM

So, you are Miley Cyrus?

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/21/09, 03:40 AM

So, you are Miley Cyrus?

lol

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/21/09, 03:43 AM

why do you think science and theories are always changing? because we gain more knowledge of the world and how it works. you are basically saying learning is pointless because what we learn will just change later down the road. it's an extremely ignorant viewpoint to have.

no... i'm saying using something that isn't fully known as the standard for judging whether or not something is true is not a good thing to do

Adeniz19

06/21/09, 10:23 AM

no... i'm saying using something that isn't fully known as the standard for judging whether or not something is true is not a good thing to doso we should be using the bible for that standard of judging? if that were the case we'd still believe earth was the center of the universe and that the earth is flat.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/21/09, 12:51 PM

no we wouldn't.

saysmydoctor

06/21/09, 12:55 PM

Adeniz19

06/21/09, 01:08 PM

uuuhhh yes we would. both of those were first THEORIES until we had the proper technology to show they were scientific FACT. If Galileo didn't continue to question the church, who knows how much longer it would of taken to find out the truth.

x togepi x

06/21/09, 02:21 PM

Rejectin' science. Up the fucking punx.

god i hate that those people think i agree with them.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/21/09, 02:33 PM

Yes, we would. Scientific inquiry QUESTIONING what was already believed to be fact told us we were wrong.

Please don't attempt revisionist history in this thread or any thread in this forum. You will be shot down.

sorry. i took it to mean he was saying the Bible says the earth is flat... so yeah, you're right. what i was saying is that everything we do should be held to the standard of Biblical truth- including science. but i know you disagree.

saysmydoctor

06/21/09, 02:38 PM

god i hate that those people think i agree with them.
Who?
sorry. i took it to mean he was saying the Bible says the earth is flat... so yeah, you're right. what i was saying is that everything we do should be held to the standard of Biblical truth- including science. but i know you disagree.
The Bible may not have said it, but the authority of Bible interpretation and Catholicism, the Roman Catholic Church did say that.

And no, the two should be held to the same standard at all. If we held to the standard of Biblical truth, we would not be here.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/21/09, 02:53 PM

i don't get what that last sentence means, saysmydoc.

if you don't hold science up to a biblical standard, what is the standard? and what makes that standard truth?

and the roman catholic church said a lot of things, many of them not true.

Adeniz19

06/21/09, 04:05 PM

sorry. i took it to mean he was saying the Bible says the earth is flat... so yeah, you're right. what i was saying is that everything we do should be held to the standard of Biblical truth- including science. but i know you disagree.
the bible does say that the sun was the one that was moving and not earth.

Joshua 10: 13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

1 Chronicles 16:30
"(...) the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

and also that the earth has 4 corners

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree

saysmydoctor

06/21/09, 04:58 PM

And learn something new every day. Even though I should know that Revelation line.

Regards

06/21/09, 06:43 PM

the bible does say that the sun was the one that was moving and not earth.

Joshua 10: 13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

1 Chronicles 16:30
"(...) the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

and also that the earth has 4 corners

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree
There area plenty of other people who've stated the exact same two bits (the sun stood still, the four corners of the Earth) as mere similes and comparisons in their figure of speech.

These two statements no where near say that the Earth is flat nor that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Edit: Before I get slammed by grammar police, I realize none of those are similes, I just like the word.

brenByah

06/21/09, 06:44 PM

There area plenty of other people who've stated the exact same two bits (the sun stood still, the four corners of the Earth) as mere similes and comparisons in their figure of speech.

These two statements no where near say that the Earth is flat nor that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Definitely, there's plenty of examples of similes and comparisons in the Bible. I don't understand those who want to intepret it all literally.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/21/09, 06:48 PM

joshua- ya the sun was still for a DAY. God kept it like that so the Israelites would have daylight for the battle. read the passage.

1 chronicles- "world" and "earth" are two different words- plus in the original language, that verse represents God's immovable, unalterable order.

revelation- the "four corners" represent God's all-encompassing authority- not a literal, geometric set of four corners.

it helps to read in context, so as not to falsely represent :)

Adeniz19

06/21/09, 07:05 PM

Except, the sun doesn't move around the earth. it doesn't make since for it to stay still for a day. if anything, the earth would stay still for a day. that's not reading something out of context, they were just wrong at how they perceived the world.

And yea, looking back now, you can say the 4 corners of the earth as figurative, but people took that literally when it was written. Same thing can be said about Genesis.

ZzyzxScarecrow

06/21/09, 07:30 PM

true, but it's a matter of the perspective that joshua had.

there's still a period of 24 hrs missing in space- time accounted for between the account in joshua, and another account in 2 kings, in which the sun was moved 10 degrees backwards

Mercy Medical

06/22/09, 05:28 AM

Such an overused, worthless excuse for lacking curiosity or motive.

I hate people who find the obvious fact that we're all going to die as a reason to live blankly passing everything off as trivial. Why not live your life in pursuit of your interests? Why not take pride in being a forgotten gem in humanity's past? I wish people could see pass these defense mechanisms and live with some self serving purpose.
I'm not passing anything off as trivial. I understand the importance of these types of things and find these kind of things important, but a lot of the time I find the heated discussion between the two sides as pointless. Everyone argues as if they are the one that is right.

This is by no means a defense mechanism as a proclamation that no one really knows what happened to create this planet. We can all speculate, but in the end we have no idea. I just don't see the purpose in putting so much time, effort and energy into proving the other side wrong, regardless of what that other side's stance is...