Evolution & Atheism... Is it really more plausible?

[grimsprice]

Show me a REAL missing link, noob. Part of the point of this thread is to have people actually give real EXAMPLES.

If you'd like, you can sit through the fallowing video. I realize that it is about intelligent design, but there good points about evolution in it.

http://fora.tv/2008/08/18/Kenneth_Miller_on_Evolution_and_Intelligent_Design

Or, if you don't like listening to cell biologists, you can stick your head in the sand and read this...

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

 

[grimsprice]

Religion and science will never coexist peacefully, because you have the two strongest fundamental aspects of human nature: faith, and truth. Do not flame me because I say truth, or I will force you to ride the triceratops with the fucking saddle. What I mean is, science gives answers and satisfies the human need for knowledge. We need to know WHY things are. Hence why Amelia Earhart is still studied even though all she was was some chick who crashed a plane. We don't know what happened, so we need to find out. Faith on the other hand gives a different sort of knowledge. Rather than breaking things down into their little bits, they look at a bigger picture that seems to explain things. Hence, faith. It's fire and water, the two cannot exist in the same place, which is why quite frankly we should stop bothering with this discussion.

Now watch as ten people quote lines from my post out of context and point out how I'm wrong.

I will do no such thing. I simply want to expand on your fire and water analogy. Science is water, because as the water spreads, it consumes the fire. If you fill something with water, there can be no fire, as fire needs air. (air being ignorance)

 

[Jedoro]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

 

[grimsprice]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

That is an intensely ignorant question. One that boils the blood of a scientist. What we evolved from is not around anymore. Other species of primates evolved from the same ancestor along side us. Our ancestors aren't around anymore. Evolution is a tree, not a pole, living species being leaves, and old, dead species, being the branches and trunk.

 

[LongAndShort]

I mean 'living organisms just randomly appeared' seems impossible and implausible. And if God didn't do it then what?

Well if there are an enormous amount of planets out there (like trillions probably), the chances of there being at least one where a lightning strike or a super-heated phenomenon occured and caused the first cell to be formed are pretty high, especially when you consider the fact that the universe may have existed forever. albeit in different states. But eventually something like life would occur and I don't understand why people think there has to be any rhyme or reason to existance.

The sheer randomness perplexes me. It may not you, but it does me. And I think that's one of the greatest reasons why people believe there is a god. We believe there has to be a reason for everything. On the one hand it has allowed us to search for and find the answers to numerous questions, underpinning scientific discovery throughout history. We must find the A that causes B. We must find a reason, and most people would find God creating the first life to be a lot more likely than a lightning strike. I accept the reason why you disagree with me, and i hope you accept why i find it difficult to agree with you.

 

[CptCamoPants]

Isn't there another thread like this on the same page of the forum?

It is true evolution is based in well-founded provable facts, but thats the thing, if the bible was founded in true PROVABLE facts, than there would be no such thing as faith.

Fictional books on WWII was founded in true provable facts. Just because some things that the bible says really happened doesn't mean that all of them were true.

 

[ntafiend]

Having grown up in a religious family i have put a lot of thought into this myself. Personally i believe in science way more than i do religion. I dont think that either science Or religion has any business trying to prove or disprove the other because both of them are more wrong than right.

For example, as most people know, it was once a scientific fact that the world was flat and revolved around the sun. Extreme examples i know, but it does show that the nature of science is to be wrong more often than right. And as i understand it, science has proven that evolution happens. I also understand that while science has presented plenty of evidence supporting human evolution from apes and the like, it still hasnt been completely proven, its simply widely accepted. I am talking about the "gaps" in the fossil record here, not the absence of any proof at all.

As for religion, i think most of its mistakes are even more widely known so i wont list any here. The most telling thing i have found when discussing this is that people who support creationism always wind up with and argument ending something like " because god says so."

I believe that we evolved. and i do believe in god. Nice link MalthusX
Just my opinion people.

 

[Jedoro]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

That is an intensely ignorant question. One that boils the blood of a scientist. What we evolved from is not around anymore. Other species of primates evolved from the same ancestor along side us. Our ancestors aren't around anymore. Evolution is a tree, not a pole, living species being leaves, and old, dead species, being the branches and trunk.

I appreciate your use of "ignorant" and not something along the lines of "stupid."

That raises the question of why other primates didn't evolve into humans as well, though, given the high amounts of similarities.

 

[Lukyo]

Micro-evolution of course, but macro-evolution is still to far-fetched to consider.

 

[CptCamoPants]

The domestication of wolves into dogs would be an example of evolution...
I mean, look at a beagle, or chihuahua. 10,000 years ago that would've been a wolf.

 

[Lukyo]

Oh, lord. This never stops does it. Does it really matter? Honestly? You have your views, i have mine etc etc. Lets just get over this already.

Do you say that with the assumption that all views are wrong or just the ones you don't agree with?

 

[somekindarobot]

Show me a REAL missing link, noob. Part of the point of this thread is to have people actually give real EXAMPLES. That seems to be the problem nowadays. You say, "this is supported by facts and statistics," and people believe you. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS POST. And fossils that show similarities... hmmm. Maybe because those bones work? Maybe they serve a freakin similar purpose??? Geez. Good job regarding grammar and spelling though.

Archeopteryx, perhaps? Or Australopithecus? Or Icthyostega? There's a million of them.

 

[grimsprice]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

That is an intensely ignorant question. One that boils the blood of a scientist. What we evolved from is not around anymore. Other species of primates evolved from the same ancestor along side us. Our ancestors aren't around anymore. Evolution is a tree, not a pole, living species being leaves, and old, dead species, being the branches and trunk.

I appreciate your use of "ignorant" and not something along the lines of "stupid."

That raises the question of why other primates didn't evolve into humans as well, though, given the high amounts of similarities.

Differing situations. Evolution, to put it bluntly, is the statistical favoring of one random genetic difference over another. We evolved in an environment where intelligent planing garnered more food and prosperity than say... better climbing skills. Look at the different environments that primates evolved in and you will see the reasons why their particular adaptations proved useful. They did not evolve in areas where intellect was a productive trait. Our early ancestors moved out of the trees and onto the plains, and into the pine forested hills of Europe. You don't find many monkeys living on the plains now do you?

 

[Jedoro]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

That is an intensely ignorant question. One that boils the blood of a scientist. What we evolved from is not around anymore. Other species of primates evolved from the same ancestor along side us. Our ancestors aren't around anymore. Evolution is a tree, not a pole, living species being leaves, and old, dead species, being the branches and trunk.

I appreciate your use of "ignorant" and not something along the lines of "stupid."

That raises the question of why other primates didn't evolve into humans as well, though, given the high amounts of similarities.

Differing situations. Evolution, to put it bluntly, is the statistical favoring of one random genetic difference over another. We evolved in an environment where intelligent planing garnered more food and prosperity than say... better climbing skills. Look at the different environments that primates evolved in and you will see the reasons why their particular adaptations proved useful. They did not evolve in areas where intellect was a productive trait. Our early ancestors moved out of the trees and onto the plains, and into the pine forested hills of Europe. You don't find many monkeys living on the plains now do you?

But isn't scientific evolution the only instance in the use of the word "evolution" that relies on randomness?

 

[grimsprice]

But isn't scientific evolution the only instance in the use of the word "evolution" that relies on randomness?

I actually have no clue what that sentence is supposed to say. Could you re-word that?

 

[Mertruve]

but try and offer some real evidence FOR evolution.

1. Are you going to die?
2. Do you have your mother's eyes?
If you answered yes for any of these, there's your evidence.

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

Say I have 5 stones, 3 red and 2 blue. I don't like the red ones, so I throw them away. That's it. You can't really disprove evolution, it's like disproving gravity.

 

[Lukyo]

Oh, lord. This never stops does it. Does it really matter? Honestly? You have your views, i have mine etc etc. Lets just get over this already.

Do you say that with the assumption that all views are wrong or just the ones you don't agree with?

I was basically saying live and let live, it doesnt matter to me at all what your, his, all these other peoples views are. Im not going around pushing the matter because in the end it really doesnt matter. so if youre done sassing me, id like to continue ignoring you.

What makes you think it doesn't matter? Where you go for all eternity does strike me as something important to consider.

 

[Jedoro]

But isn't scientific evolution the only instance in the use of the word "evolution" that relies on randomness?

I actually have no clue what that sentence is supposed to say. Could you re-word that?

To tell you the truth, I don't think it matters, since I either a) figured out the answer by myself, or b) decided I really wasn't too concerned with the answer.

Nothing against you, of course, I just hate not being able to figure my own mind out at times. What matters is that I got an answer for the "monkeys -> humans" question I originally asked. I think you're one of the first people I've asked who gave a decent answer, so thank you.

 

[AngloDoom]

Okay guys... post. Please do so in an intelligent manner (I reserve the right to make fun of every grammatical error found), and, if you directly mention elements of Christianity... make sure you have some idea what you are talking about.

PS: Don't hate me for making a religious thread.

I'd ask you to have similar standards in terms of evolution. We've proven evolution is true. We've proven it in plants, animals, individual cells, the whole shabang. Evolution itself is proven, the real debate is human evolution. Now, are humans that biologically perfect that we never evolved? Are our bodies really that suited to every environment we know we've been in? I have a gut feeling that it's a 'no', but maybe that's just my fucking appendix talking.

For the love of Godwin, evolution is proven. It happens, it's happening, it's happened. That is not up for debate unless you're willing to pull a PHD out of the your arse and start talking sciencey.

I'm not going to try and debate the issue of religion with you, but your arguement is the great old-fashioned "science has gaps and has made mistakes" stance. That viewpoint would be fine if your entire arguement didn't come from a text with multiple errors and no ways of explaining the processes. It's equivalent to clapping your hands over your ears and screaming. If you want to take a 'logical' standpoint on the whole idea, it's it more 'logical' to believe in something once it's found to exist, rather than believe in everything until proven otherwise.

To let you understand the viewpoint a little bit more from my perspective; go out and prove me wrong when I say there's an 80ft sea-serpent living on Bournemouth beach who cannot be perceived by man or machine.

To be frank, I find the idea of 'faith' a brainless, ridiculous affair dating back to medieval methods of 'thought police', but I don't throw that in the face of anyone who believes in a religion. No, I save that for people like you who demand facts whilst offering none in return.

Go learn me a book, and stop pissing us all off.

 

[grimsprice]

noob.

You've used that word in both of your posts. Around here, its looked down upon a great deal. It makes you sound like an 11 year old kid. Which you probably are. And most people here aren't paleontologists. So not many of them have fossils laying round in their drawers. If you want to see well documented 'missing links', you're going to have to do some research by yourself instead of trolling a respectable and intelligent website community.