Top Ten Reasons Not To Believe In Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution … (Page 3) Anhedonia: To certain users on this thread: I highly suggest learning the theory before ranting about it. It's rather important to learn about something before you debate it. It gives your arguments more validity. That's all I have to say.  LiptonCambell: >>>I never said animals weren't changing ,I said we didn't evolve from animals I'm sorry, I need more clairty. Are you saying animals evolve, but humans do not? Why the distinction? What makes us so expectional to have simply always been? And why do animals such as chimps seem to have such simular traits? Why is there evidence for Trilobites 500 million years ago, but no evidence for man prior to 10 million years ago? And most importantly, WHY IS MAN INCAPIBLE OF EVOLVING, BUT ALL OTHER LIFE IS NOT? >>>They found a 'fosilized' Dino footprint with a 'fosilized' modern man footprint right inside of it . They? Who is they? >>>A rock with a carving of what looked to be a tribal chieftan in full dress ,smoking a pipe ,while riding a Trycerotops dino was found in the same area And my nephew drew a blue dog with a rocket on his back- does this mean blue dogs with rockets on their backs exist? Or is it impossible for cavemen to simply draw things that don't really exist, but my nephew has this magical ability? >>>ever heard of a Woolie Mammoth ? I was still on the understanding that you believed all lifeforms were there from the beginning- not that -only- mankind existed from the beginning, and everyone else evolved. Although the problem still exists that, when life first appeared, the Earth would be incapible of maintaining human life >>>Who says the dinos died out? Scientific research. Dinosaurs aren't just a name- its a term for biological traits of a certain kind creature(like mammal, repitile, amphibian, ect ect). For example, the difference between dinosaurs and, say, repitiles is how the legs joined the hips, with repitiles legs being more squat and to the side while dinosaurs legs are more upright. Do I believe dinosaurs evolved into other species? It certainly looks that way. But if a Dinosaur evolved into a bird over a process of 30 million years, that animal is a bird, not a dinosaur. LiptonCambell: I think I found who "they" are- you're referencing the Paluxy Dinosaur Tracks, right? You DO know that these tracks were found to be either misinterpreted tracks(errosion giving some of them the illusion of more toes, although a claw mark on the heel is still clearly visable) and others? outright and *admitted* hoaxes.  StuckInTheSixties: Dinosaurs were not lizards. Lizards are not newer dinosaurs. From the Wiki article "Lizard": The retention of the basic 'reptilian' amniote body form by lizards makes it tempting to assume any similar animal, alive or extinct, is also a lizard. However, this is not the case, and lizards as squamates are part of a well-defined group. The earliest amniotes were superficially lizard-like, but had solid, box-like skulls, with openings only for eyes, nostrils, termed the anapsid condition. Turtles retain this skull form. Early anapsids later gave rise to two new groups with additional holes in the skull to make room for and anchor larger jaw muscles. The Synapsids, with a single fenestra, gave rise to the superficially lizard-like Pelycosaurs, which include Dimetrodon and the Therapsids, including the Cynodonts, from which the modern mammals would evolve. The Diapsids, possessing one temporal fenestra before the eye and one behind it, continued to diversify. One branch, the Archosaurs, retained the basic Diapsid skull, and gave rise to a bewildering array of animals, most famous being the crocodilians, the pterosaurs, the dinosaurs and their descendants, birds. The Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs radiated from the same basal Diapsid group. The smaller Lepidosaur branch, which would give rise to the lizards, began to reduce the skull bones, making the skull lighter and more flexible. The modern Tuatara retains the basic Lepidosaur skull, distinguishing it from true lizards in spite of superficial similarities. Squamates, including snakes and all true lizards, further lightened the skull by eliminating the lower margin of the lower skull opening. Although squamate fossils first appear in the early Jurassic, mitochondrial phylogenetics suggests that they evolved in the late Permian. Most evolutionary relationships within the squamates are not yet completely worked out, with the relationship of snakes to other groups being most problematic. From morphological data, Iguanid lizards have been thought to have diverged from other squamates very early, but recent molecular phylogenies, both from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, do not support this early divergence.[2] Because snakes have a faster molecular clock than other squamates,[2] and there are few early snake and snake ancestor fossils,[3] it is difficult to resolve the relationship between snakes and other squamate groups. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizard By the way ... Dinosaurs had feet with four toes, three in the front, one in the back, much like birds. Lizards have feet with five toes. Wizard67: Lipton....You are brilliant....My kind of people... Alot of very interesting replies... Question here though.... All kidding aside for a moment... Has anyone perhaps thought...That God created Apes...and the similarities between Man and Ape..... For us...as Humans....to exercise that thing...called Choice...???????? To believe...or not to believe...??????????? You know...that whole free will thing, That God is big on?? StuckInTheSixties: Well ... yes. Lot's of people think exactly that. There is a term that describes those people: "Religious."  _Safira_: We also share about 7000 genes with the sea urchin... ..just another one of our relations on the tree of evolution. Wizard67: I prefer the term...Spiritual... Seems that in the Spiritual realm... Two types...those that were born with faith...and those that came to faith...kicking and screaming the whole way... I would be one of the second type.....Hell of a fight too... I am a math, science, technology based lifeform... Yet...sooner or later...after getting punched in the mouth enough...with the clear answer... You..or rather..I...learned "Faith"... Wizard67: And...BTW....Woolie Mammoths are making a come back.... Apparently...they are trying to clone them... 5 years from a month or so ago...they are apparently going to make their debut... Wonder if they realize just how dangerous they were in their time...? StuckInTheSixties: Spiritual, religious ... whatever. As far as I'm concerned, it's splitting hairs. One has a specified dogma, one doesn't. One has regularly scheduled gatherings in buildings specially built for that purpose, one doesn't. One gets a huge and unfair tax break in the USA, one doesn't. But those differences are on the surface, and not at the core of that way of thinking. At the core, the common denominator, the thing that separates that way of thinking from scientific (rational) thinking, is what you mentioned: "Faith" Science and faith are mutually exclusive. StuckInTheSixties: I think this is an issue of semantics. I'd examine the meanings you assign to "science," "faith," and "lead."
Wizard67: do you believe everything that created this planet, and the entire universe...is an accident? StuckInTheSixties: My understanding is that at a point in space/time, a singularity occurred, quantum potential collapsed into sets of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs due to vacuum fluctuations occasionally producing a non-zero value after which solar and planetary accretion condensed the remaining gasses into stars and planets, the composition of which often includes organic chemicals which naturally form molecular bonds, and in our case, autocatalytic feedback loops, IE: simple replicators which proceeded to fill the oceans of early Earth, eventually increasing in sophistication, forming lipid membranes around bubbles which protect the RNA, and eventually DNA, core of early single-cell organisms, which evolved the capacity to live in colonies, becoming simple multi-cellular organisms like sponges, which became intermediaries like polyps, which became early invertabrates, some of which became fish, then amphibians, one of which (Tiktaalik) is famously among the first to crawl onto dry land, where amphibians branched off into reptiles, which branched into both birds and mammals, some of which survived the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs, became arboreal primates, later descended and learned to walk upright in order to carry food/tools/young, and of course, these proto-humans eventually became us. It may not seem intuitive, but it's the best explanation based on objective, tangible scientific proof, so that's the one I go with. Note: The wording of this explanation courtesy of a picture in Geoff's Picture Gallery. Thanks, Geoff. MrSteveA67: Thanks for your comments, Wizard67 I likely have a similar perspective. One of the realizations that 'clicked' for me is that the scientific method is actually something completely dependent upon subjectivity. The observations that science arise from what - personal experiences, perceptions etc. The information used to determine what's considered to be empirically significant or whatever thresholds of confidence one might use to consider them true/false etc. are also subjective. Where's that information collected - it's actually derived from ones own memory - even if your wrote some test results on a piece of paper, you still have to retain a memory and belief that those symbols are correlated with whatever phenomenon is experienced/observed. Consider that the same physical event could have many diverse interpretations or meanings ... but only one of those is the one someone actually experiences - ones own. Heck, even a belief or ability to determine that there's any validity in the first place to logic, science etc. Consider that all these influences over time, since at least birth, would be continually molding experiences and interpretations and the influences of that might be (even significantly) more than most people recognize. It's also interesting to consider that for something like the parallel worlds theories for quantum mechanics, there's no way to actually prove to anything else those influences ... it would only be whatever things happened to exist in a compatible state that would experience that and there would be no way to drag anything around to show the scenery (time can't be put into a box and change fundamentally has no specific form). If people have freedom in their decisions and one person figuratively "turns left" in "spacetime" while the other "turns right", then view something will have is of things moving parallel in time and together ... time is seen as a timeline in history, though the space through which the perception of time moves doesn't actually have to be 1-D (though it's a good question as to what would do the 'steering' in that case). Of course if someone simply passively observes things, then that's similar to simply moving in a straight line or an inertial motion. Anyway, there are just lots of interesting possibilities to explore and I've found enough evidence over the years to know that there's a bit more than simply the surface view Enjoy and thanks again for your comments. StuckInTheSixties: "The observations that science arise from what - personal experiences, perceptions etc. The information used to determine what's considered to be empirically significant or whatever thresholds of confidence one might use to consider them true/false etc. are also subjective." True ... sort of. That's why peer review, repetitions of observations and experiments, and variations on observations and experiments are so important. When an observation/experiment is made by numerous people, in numerous variations, and the results concur, the perceptions of those observations/experiments become objective. You think the explanation for gravity is a subjective perception? MrSteveA67: Yes, like most anything else that I could conceive of, even the existence of gravity is still something that requires a personal ability to detect and memory to correlate things over time. Consider something even more fundamental - motion itself. Let's assume someone is performing some experiment and the result is that an object moves from point A to point B. Now we might normally assume that's physical proof and it's something completely objective ... anything else in the universe should have been similarly able to witness it, but is that a view that's actually something one can rationally and logically verify as "externally" true? It appears not. If someone else walked in and saw the ball at B and you told them it moved from A, there's no physical proof that the ball had actually moved from A to B ... it's stationary at B for the new observer. Of course we can share many beliefs about physical processes and in that case, yes, someone could accept it on faith that the object had moved from A to B, but if we're to take this as a rule that we must always believe things that others claim even if we have no evidence to verify it, then the same belief that the object had moved from A to B, as stated by someone else could also be used to justify a belief in most anything else someone said. In the end, yes, even the existence of gravity requires some memory and intelligence to determine that it wasn't a fluke that dropped apples fall to the ground. StuckInTheSixties: If I take a baseball, and from point A, throw it at your head at point B, when you regain consciousness, will you still be arguing it's only subjective? I think you're conceptually and intellectually contorting to the point of torture the idea of what is subjective or objective. With that point of view, one could reply to anyone making any point about anything at any time ... "Well, how do you know you're not just dreaming it all?" If I'm on a wobbly stepladder, I'm not going to be too concerned about whether or not my perception of gravity is subjective, objective, or whatever. Subjectively, I find your arguments masturbatory. | Religion Chat Room 33 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
