Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by lyricalpriest, Feb 18, 2013.
The problem with the "it's just a theory" argument is that it is, in fact, just a theory. That doesn't make the probability of it happening any less likely. The idea of plate tectonics is still just a theory, but only because we can't reasonably observe it at this time. The same goes for evolution; the theory is that large scale macro-evolution occurred over billions of years and there's no possible way we can ever 100% prove that it took place. We can however draw conclusions based on the evidence that we do have...and it's pretty overwhelming.
We have the fossil record and all of the transitional forms that literally map out the entire course of human evolution, from Australopithecus (and the debated hominine skeletons like Ardipithicus) up until homo sapiens.
We have the genetic code which strongly suggests common ancestry. How can you explain our genetic make up being 96% similar to that of a chimp? Or 90% similar to a cat?
We also know of all sorts of vestigial structures in both humans and other animals. As humans we have our tonsils, appendix, and our vestigial tail bone. We see hip bones in whales and snakes. Ostriches, although flightless, still have wings. These are all examples of adaptive evolution.
Then there's experiments like this: Scientists Coax Brewer's Yeast into Making Evolutionary Leap to Multicellularity | Popular Science
We know natural selection occurs, we observe and live it in our world every day. To deny evolution is just incredibly un-scientific. I can understand that some people can't believe that we descended from some primordial sludge pool, but to deny human relation to apes and etinct hominids is insane.
If you're really interested in learning about evolution, i'd recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
most likely my journey will take me their my friend. right now i'm reading the kabbalah, next the tibeten book of the dead. I'm not a genius or anything but I've recognized the flaw's in my religion and dogma, and i still see it in science as well, we need to work them together tho to get some serious answers imo... im going to try to figure that out.
Good looks on checking out that stuff for yourself. Always better to search for that knowledge on your own than taking someone else's word for it. I've read the Bible, but i'm really interested in reading the Qur'an, if only to really get the full gist of it myself.
One of the more compelling arguments for evolution i've come across is laid out in detail in that book I mentioned. It's that if evolution didn't take place and we are designed by a creator, he definitely isn't perfect, evidenced by the many problems and strange layouts of human and other animal bodies.
<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="276" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xdm5he"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins Demonstrates Laryngeal Nerve of...</a> <i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/blindwatcher" target="_blank">blindwatcher</a></i>
In this video he dissects a Giraffe, pointing out how the laryngeal nerve inexplicably travels down the entire neck and into the breastbone, likely a by product of the neck becoming longer and longer through the evolutionary process.
You cant. if they couldnt u wouldnt be able to pose this question.
Here's your proof of evolution.
USA - North Then
USA - North Now
On the other hand...
USA - South Then
USA - South Now
Sorry about the size. (That's what he said)
^^ classic lavoz response love it.. and @ChromeDepot i'll for sure give it a check when i finish my other lit right now...and i agree god when he created the galaxy he was just being created as well and as god ages he gets wiser but he was never perfect. we are a result of his energy and thought.. and we manifest our lifes thru our energy and thought etcetc.. evolution is partially correct but i have a feeling we'll learn more about it thru the years, but I have no understanding why I won't let go to the dogmatic view i have on the universal creator.
I know you don't believe in evolution, and that's fine, as it's very difficult to accept a theory that would contradict so many of your beliefs. I understand that completely, however there is a plethora of evidence; along with what I posted above there is so much other stuff out there that supports the theory that to not even consider it is ignorance personified.
Are you just not convinced because you are underwhelmed by the evidence? Or would you consider yourself a creationist?
It always strikes me as funny when religious people (not directed at you LP, since you obviously have a surprisingly open mind about these things) suddenly become sticklers for mounds and mounds of evidence when it comes to theories that contradict their religious beliefs. The evidence is all there, they just refuse to look.
What if I were to ask you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists? What could you provide me with as proof? The Bible? I could always counter by mentioning the Qu'ran or the Torah. You could mention personal experiences, but most of those have a psychological basis and aren't admissible by scientific standards.
It's quite hypocritical to demand more evidence for a theory, yet be 100% firm in your religious belief when you have not a shred of it to back your faith.
i feel like the moment I renounced christianity i embraced it it more closely then ever before.. but thats me
So u really think we can dig up 65 million year old dinosaur fossils by the truckload
but cant find not one (1) transitional species evidence begining from
10s of millions of years later up to 50,000 or so years ago.
and all those transitional species we cant find one solid specimin.
Not to mention the falsified 'evidence' that makes up the 'proof'
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
That was ur first mistake
Fossils? You mean the things that God planted in the ground to fool people?
I assume u mean 'young earth' creationist. which i am not. creationist however
yes christians believe in creation. proof? You are living in it. until u have an alternative theory of how something came from nothing- life itself is proof.
and yes thats in the bible too
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Dinosaurs are spoken of in the bible as well.
We have the remains of transitional species..
Australopithecus afarensis, the ancestor to modern hominids:
Ardipithecus ramidus, the intermediate between the common ancestor of chimps and Australopithecus:
Obviously you know of Homo erectus and habilis? These are all transitional species, Australopithecus (which began appearing 4 million years ago) being our likely common ancestor and Habilis being the likely ancestor to Erectus.
You're making a common mistake concerning the term "transitional species". If you're looking for some sort of remains that are suddenly human then you are sorely mistaken. Evolution is a gradual process that slowly weeds out the weak and allows the stronger or smarter species to prosper. Every species is a transitional species since evolution is an ongoing and never ending process.
Ahhh, the something from nothing argument. Let me try my hand at this...
You're contradicting yourself. If God created this complex world, filled with the laws of physics and other rules then he must have been created by something even more infinitely complex. It becomes an infinite loop.
You're argument is basically "This world is too fine-tuned to be random", yet you don't account for who created God. If you're argument becomes "God has always been" or "God created himself" then you again contradict yourself by saying that God came from nothing.
As far as your "proof": it's exactly what I expected. Pseudo scientific babble that is neither measurable or relevant to any rational discussion.
Separate names with a comma.