113 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Categories
Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Illuminatiscott on Creationism ‘ The empty cage ‘
- Jozeh on World of Chemistry
- ned on Gray Goo Nanobots
- Zerp64 on Gray Goo Nanobots
- Trace on Gray Goo Nanobots
-
-
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us · XHTML · CSS
skeptic said,
July 5, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Here’s an idea for another sign…
“The Evolution Zoo Presents: The Half-Man, Half-Ape
Since people evolved from apes, and both apes and humans currently exist, we should logically expect to see several intermediary species between apes and men. We haven’t ever found any, but we figure they all live somewhere, maybe in the Amazonian jungle. As soon as we find them, we’ll put them in this cage. Check back later.”
lofi said,
July 6, 2007 @ 12:47 am
this doesn’t make any sense
lg huxley said,
July 6, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Why?
Why do you say that people evolved from apes?
Please site.
John said,
July 6, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Wow “Skeptic”, I didn’t realise that in your case, your nickname was synonymous with “ignorant” as well. The theory of evolution (when it comes to explaining man’s current state) doesn’t state that man evolved from the apes you see around us today. It states that man and the apes today had a common ancestor (a.k.a THE MISSING LINK), and that the evolutionary line split into different directions, one which eventually spawned humans, and the other(s) which eventually spawned today’s primates.
Also evolution takes A LONG FREAKIN’ time (if it happens in 10,000 years, that’s normally considered damn quick), so putting an ape in a cage and checking back in a few days isn’t going to produce any results, and scientists don’t claim that it will. However the bible claims that God created the entire Earth, including its animals in just a number of days, so there isn’t any excuse for God to not be able to slap an animal in there in such a short amount of time.
Maybe the reason you’re a skeptic is because you just don’t have a goddamn clue about the inner-workings of what you are skeptic of in the first place.
Oh yeah, and did I mention you’re a fucking idiot?
darwin award said,
July 6, 2007 @ 12:58 am
funny to see a creationist calling himself skeptic.
skeptic's skeptic said,
July 6, 2007 @ 1:01 am
“we should logically expect to see several intermediary species”
No, we shouldn’t. They’re called “intermediate” species because they’ve evolved into something else.
Scientists have discovered twelve species of hominids whose DNA is within 98% identical. Maybe it’s just a coincidence. That and tens of thousands of other facts backing up evolution. All a fluke.
Realist said,
July 6, 2007 @ 1:08 am
Here’s an idea, skeptic…
People didn’t evolve from any form of apes that currently exist. About 5-8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the 2 separate lineages we know today.
So, we should NOT logically expect to see several intermediary species between apes and men. Why don’t you read a basic science book about evolution before you write such nonsense?
rassy said,
July 6, 2007 @ 1:30 am
skeptic you ignoramus, men and apes are descended from a common ancestor, and I’ll explain this nice and simple like, that means that men aren’t descended from apes, so there would not be any intermediary ’species’…
love the cage!
emily said,
July 6, 2007 @ 1:37 am
@skeptic
your ignorance is showing. go read up on human evolution, and then maybe you can make sarcastic remarks that aren’t completely asinine.
Monkeyman said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:12 am
Skeptic - I won’t go on about how ignorant you are (i feel thats been proven by others) But i’d just like to add that there is actually a fairly good fossil record of the evolution of Homo Sapians (thats people by the way), ranging from near ‘ape’ like, through the evolution of Bipedalism, larger brain capacity, first use of tools, first known ‘burial’ the list goes on and on.
My point is ALL of these fossils or fossil sites are evidence of the link/evolution between ‘apes’ (not modern day species) and Humans. These my dear skeptic are your missing intermediary species.
Matt said,
July 6, 2007 @ 7:19 am
The cage is for ’skeptic’.
Hop in! There’s plenty of locks!
eye-of-horus said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:34 am
There’s no problem here:
You, Skeptic, into the cage!
will said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Why can’t these religious nuts except scientific fact? to busy burning books, telling women they dont have a choice about their own body, or maybe they are just so closed minded that the idea of a magic man in the sky seems logical. im not saying their isnt a higher power, but thats no reason to form a belief structure that cannot be changed. We dont have all the answers, and neither does god, because as much as you claim it, HE ISNT TALKING TO YOU!
Think said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:59 am
To everyone but skeptic,
If evolution has all of these facts backing it up and it is so obvious to you all then why is it still debated not only among non-scientist but also among scientist?
Just a word of advise for you all. Calling people names and putting them down does not help make your argument, it only gives you less credibility for not being able to carry on an adult conversation.
Munan said,
July 6, 2007 @ 11:41 am
To everyone.
Evolution is scientific fact. Everyone is looking at it from the wrong standpoint.
Did God create the heavens and the Earth? Yes.
Did we, as a species, evolve to fit our surroundings? Absolutely.
Evolution is not the answer to how.. It’s the answer to why.
Any human with a soul knows there is more to life than what we see. Call is God, or anything else you like. Whatever it is, it gave us life. I choose to not presume to name it. I just thank it.
But then, evolution took over and we became the beings we are now, capable of recognizing that we aren’t an accident.
There are so many other things that should be debated other than this continual nonsense.
There is no right or wrong here. We exist, now let’s feed some hungry people and rebuild New Orleans. You know, things that matter to the other 6 billion evolved, created beings on this planet.
But that’s just my opinion. What do I know? I’m a Buddhist.
Realist said,
July 6, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
@ Think:
Who are all these “scientists” still debating about the theory of evolution? “Non-scientists” should read a book about human evolution before making any ignorant claims about evolution.
Calling an ignorant person an ignoramous does not make any of our arguments less credible. Skeptic IS ignorant regarding the theory of evolution. He should simply read about a book about human evolution before making such an ignorant statement.
I believe the simplest proof of evolution is the presence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. “God” didn’t create these antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria; they evolved! Evolution is occurring right now!
Hijinx said,
July 6, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Someone once wiser than myself once said, pertaining to this debate, “i like schizos and the circus…”
I’m just kidding. That wasn’t relevant at all.
Kal said,
July 6, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Evolution versus creationism is an endless debate… because it’s opinion versus fact and opinions are not debatable. We should wait about 100 years more to see some significant financial problems in Vatican.
Bailey said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
To think
The reason that scientists debate evolution is because they are scientist. Science is the theory of debate, reason and evidence. Unlike religion scientists can always question their facts and with enough compelling ones can change their facts accordingly.
Plus you seem to suggest that scientists are debating whether evolution actually happens, which is simply not true. Scientists are debating the mechanisms and pathways of evolution, changing families and species of living things. Evolution has happened while humans have watched e.g. bacteria which have evolved to digest nylon and also a species of mosquito which lives in the london underground and now cannot breed with it’s ancestor which still lives above ground. Another interesting example is of the herring gull look it up it is an example of ring distribution.
Cheers pete
No, you think said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
@Think
That’s because science is an ever-improving process where theories are revised and strengthened through debate and observation. Debate in science is not a sign of weakness, it’s its greatest strength.
Paul said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
To what Think said.
People debate evolution because nobody can be 100% sure in the same way you can’t be 100% sure there is a god but I’m willing to put my money on evolution. You only need to look at radical Muslims and their beliefs, I’m sure nobody here would agree that non-believers deserve to be beheaded and made to suffer. Religion is responsible for more bloodshed through the ages than just about anything else.
I’m more of an athiest but open to all theories whereas people of a particular religion have one set view and anything that doesn’t fall into that is therefore invalid.
I think I know who’s opinion I’d value more.
jane said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
also “skeptic” (who will probably never read this)
go make your own art, don’t copy someone elses.
sorry i guess thats what christianity did, steal from the pagans. some lessons cant be unlearned.
Sean said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
“Since people evolved from apes, and both apes and humans currently exist…”
No. The ‘apes’ we evolved from do not exist anymore.
This statement highlights one of the most common misunderstandings as to the mechanism of natural selection; the idea that humans as they exist today evolved from other apes as they exist today. This simply is not what happened.
Humans and other apes, such as chimpanzees, evolved simultaneously from offshoots of a third form of ape which no longer exists. Random mutations in this ape lead to a division of the species. One group became us and other protohominids, and the other group became chimps and orangutans and bonobo sexmonkeys and so forth.
So the reason they can’t find a half-man/half-chimp is because it doesn’t exist. It never existed. We didn’t evolved from chimps. We evolved from a much earlier ape that went extinct millions of years ago. What we are looking for (and continue to find) are fossil evidence of evolutionary states somewhere between human and this unnamed extinct ape.
But if that’s too complicated, you could just look through the DNA evidence. There’s a lot of it, so you may want to get a sandwich first.
“If evolution has all of these facts backing it up and it is so obvious to you all then why is it still debated not only among non-scientist but also among scientist?”
Can you cite a serious scientific debate on the validity of evolutionary theory?
ThinkHarder said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Think: It’s spelled “advice,” not “advise,” and there is no debate among scientists (note the use of an “s” to indicate the plural form of a word) as to whether or not evolution occurs. It’s old news my friend.
Munan: Thank you. Although I think you meant to say that evolution answers “how” not “why.” I could not agree more. There is no real disagreement between religion and science.
The problem occurs when people want to believe every single word of the as if their literal meaning were true. Even Jesus used parables people. The crazed athiests also share some blame, in my opinion (Richard Dawkins). Their all-out war on religion is a bit of an overreaction, but that could be debated. When it comes down to it, humans can’t figure everything out. So we should get as far as we can, but we simply don’t have enough information, senses, or brain capacity to know all there is to know.
Just relax and be good to each other. No matter what, we are here on this Earth together, we have shared some awesome process of creation, whatever it is, and we will share an incredible future. So relax and help someone out today!
Greg said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
to Think.
Where is it still debated? Not in the scientific community that’s for sure.
Theory does not mean “Not True Yet” it means “Here’s this really solid idea and let’s all take a look at it and see how it fits the real world.”
Well it fits.
Nobody has come up with ANY evidence against the theory. ALL the evidence any scientist has EVER found supports the theory of evolution.
So again I ask, where is it debated?
skeptic said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
I’m the skeptic that know. I’m so smart I try to make funny.
Nogood said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
My God has the power to create things that appear to be billions of years old even if they are not.
My God has the power to create extremely complex things like human life and blades of grass.
My God has a son named Jesus.
If he made everything clear to us it would not take faith to believe in Him.
Jacob said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Well, you’re not a very good Buddhist, Munan. At least, not if you actually think what you posted - “Did God create the heavens and the Earth? Yes.”
See - http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm
It irks me when people say “I’m Buddhist” to try and rationalize some desire to just say that “everything is equally true”. It’s just another way of turning off your brain and ceasing to use any semblance of critical thought… and it’s certainly not what the Buddha taught!
If you’re going to claim to follow the Buddha, take some time to learn what he actually said. Don’t just make up your own nonsense and claim it’s his teachings.
And, the same goes for those who claim to believe in the Bible, and those who claim to accept modern Science. Too few people actually examine the evidence and try to draw their own conclusions, on both sides of issues like this. It’s mostly just idiots running around spewing out things they’ve heard other people say.
Brand said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
The THEORY of Evolution is not science fact. It is, on the other hand, the best theory or explanation of the data as we know it.
The strange thing about religious people is they always expect scientists to think in the primitive ways they do. Religious people have “faith” in their absolute beliefs. Conversely, Scientists are not so arrogant, and they desire only to prove or disprove their beliefs or more correctly, theories.
It is a “theory” until we have irrefutable proof. Something we may never have, but the search for knowledge is mans greatest achievement. Belief systems merely obscure or obstruct that search.
Religion, in all its forms, is a throwback to mans primitive past. When Man can’t explain something he invents a religion to explain it. Science is after Knowledge not Beliefs.
As man grows and throws off his primitive archaic belief systems, leaves this cradle called Earth and truly becomes a child of the Universe, he will do so with science and knowledge not with ignorant beliefs. Such beliefs merely retard human development.
We truly are Star dust.
Cove said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
If any of you are realy stupid enought to belive in creationism. Please help evolution by not breeding. Thank You.
Cove said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Actually if any of you are stupid enought to belive in a devine presence. Please refrain from breeding. Thank You.
Michael said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
lol, skeptic just got pwned
oh yeah, Evolution is NOT fact it is only a theory (bear with me) which has had well over a hundred years of evidence to support it BUT it is still a theory, it just happens to work perfectly with the evidence that is presenting itself to the Worlds’ scientists. Munan, seriously, there is no God, we are just more highly evloved animals, but we are still animals. With the exception of our ability to change our environment to suit us there is no animal on Earth which does not have at least one of our supossed ‘higher’ abilities.
For Example, many species are tool users, several species have language and communicate ideas and feelings, many species construct shelters to protect themselves from adverse weather, many species construct tools in order o constuct other tools, apes have recently been proved to use liquids as tools - a highly advanced case of problem solving. There are others but my fingers are getting tired.
ee
In conclusion NOTHING gave us life, we simply evolved to the point where we could conceptualize about our existence. There are many archaeological sites which show (roughly) the time when bodies were left where they droped and then when they weren’t, bones smudged with ochre for example, suggesting that at least some ritual was involved in waiting until the body had decayed so that the bones (essence) of the person could be ’sanctified’….
Go read about it….
Peace
Argggg said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Scientists are not debating evolution any more than they are debating whether or not the Earth is revolving around the Sun. In fact there is much, much more evidence to support evolution that there was to support that the Earth revolved around the Sun when Galileo was persecuted for that belief in the 1600s. Now just like then, the science is questioned only because it contradicts religious beliefs, and the arguments against are no more scientific. And NO, Intelligent Design is not science.
For any of you that would like more information on evolution, a great read written for people with nonscientific backgrounds is: Lynn Margulis “Microcosmos four billion years of microbial evolution”. I challenge anyone who questions the existence of evolution to get this book. The fossil record is just too complete and convincing for any open minded person to ignore.
Shandooga said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Why don’t they splash some water on some batteries and see what evolves?
RelativeScience said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
This display is absolutely absurd. It’s art. It’s someone expressing their opinion. Great!
Evolution exists, though the only thing that is evolving is science itself. If you want to be skeptical and not believe in “Intelligent Design,” or God, that’s your problem but don’t point to the “Missing Link” and modern science to prove anything.
In twenty years, science will change, as it always has, and the Bible will remain the same, as it always has, and this argument will continue. The “Missing Link” will be missing forever and the “invisible” God will continue to patiently wait for you to stop asking him to fit into your little box and stop expecting him to fill your stupid cage.
Crab said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Think: “If evolution has all of these facts backing it up and it is so obvious to you all then why is it still debated not only among non-scientist but also among scientist?”
The scientists that oppose the theory of evolution (we’ll discredit the non-scientists from scientific discussions here for the same reason I wouldn’t be too concerned about whether my neighbour believed that the nordic and romantic languages share a common root) tend to base their arguments on invalidated science or a new modification to the theory which is usually dispatched with similar speed, and outright deny all evidence to the contrary.
No, we cannot _prove_ macroevolution in a mathematical sense, or deductively, no more than we can prove that oxygen in isolation under atmospheric pressure at 30 degrees Celsius will always form diatomic molecules, because we haven’t observed all possible instances, but we’ve never seen it otherwise, and praying for it to be otherwise hasn’t stopped it yet either. Much as I hate to invoke Dawkins, consider his teapot. No, I can’t guarantee that there isn’t a bone china teapot orbiting the sun, because I haven’t looked everywhere in the solar system, but as I have no compelling reason to believe there is one, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there is. (I appreciate this was originally an anti-theological argument, but it is nevertheless appropriate).
Here we come to the first principle of the scientific method that creationism fails to adhere to: the burden of proof.
Let me make another (admittedly long-winded) analogy. You are a biology teacher. You show your class an experiment where you mix ethene and bromine in equal proportions, and observe that you invariably end up discolouring the bromine water. All the verified records of such a reaction have shown this. One of your students comes to you and says that when she did the experiment, the bromine did not discolour. You look over her notes and find that she accidentally moved a decimal point to the left, so she only put in a tenth of the required ethene. You point this out, and show her the experiment again. She disagrees, saying that it doesn’t always happen if you wish it to be so - who needs to prove that their experiment is correct?
Obviously, your student does. Her theory is inferior, as it is firstly entirely divorced from all other findings and more fundamental theories, and secondly does not best fit the observations: she wishes for it again with the correct amount of ethene, and it discolours, whereas the original theory (it will always discolour) fits all the observations (it always has). The burden of proof is on her because she has the inferior theory.
In addition, creation “science” as it is dubbed, invokes supernatural phenomena to avoid its problems. Say to a creationist: “How did the wolf come into being”, and the creationist replies ” put it there.” Their theory is therefore not falsifiable - you cannot approach this supernatural force and perform experiments. Ask a biologist, and the biologist replies “As the wolf’s ancestors’ environment changed, random mutations proved more or less favourable. The organisms with favourable changes lived longer and reproduced more prolifically, causing the favourable genes in that environment to become more common. This process repeated itself many times over millions of years until the wolf, with RNA strands, primitive amoeba, reptiles and rodent-like mammals in its lineage depending on what was favourable at the time, was favourable.” No supernatural force is required.
I feel, having mentioned falsifiability, I must go into an aside. Claims that macroevolution is non-falsifiable are nonsense. If we were to encounter a fossil or better yet living organism with no relation to other organisms, inexplicable by natural selection, we would have to abandon the theory of revolution. Merely because the theory is robust, does not make it unfalsifiable.
Finally, to pre-empt the occasional citations of “debate within the scientific community” not including creationists, this tends to be decontextualised - certainly, the fine points of the theory are debated and modified as new evidence comes to light, suggesting that perhaps sexual selection was more important in the speciation of humans and other great apes (not chimpanzees, by the way) than we believed, or that perhaps a new genetic sequence came to light suggesting that the sea worm was taxonomically further from the common earthworm than we believed. The main component of the theory, speciation through evolutionary pressures, these being natural selection, sexual selection and artificial selection, remains unaltered and undebated amongst scientists (this being opposed to “evangelists”).
As a footnote, if anyone cares to accuse me of using long words to confuse my point, I would firstly like to suggest if they cannot handle six syllable words I’m leery of their ability to judge the origins of species, and secondly, they may contact me at thecrabishere@googlemail.com for a more simplified and detailed explanation.
Shandooga said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Evolution is the answer to this question:
“What’s the best way to dispose of devil-worshipers?”
Yes, evolution is a pagan religion, like catholicism (no caps for devil-worshippers).
Fact vs Theory said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
The theory of evolution is not scientific fact or law. While it is a theory, and one that that is supported by quite a bit of evidence, there are still gaps and flaws with the theory. We have the Newton’s Laws of Physics (those are true no matter what), but we don’t have the Law of Evolution. We have the theory. While it is a generally accepted opinion of the scientific community which is backed by evidence, I can’t stress enough that it isn’t fact.
So until it is the Law of Evolution, do not jump down skeptic’s throat. Take a look at everyone who thought Galileo was crazy when he thought the Earth was not the center of the Universe. For years people knew the that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. (I know this might not be the best analogy seeing as most of those people were Christian) Just remember one thing, theories are not set in stone.
Fact vs Theory said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
I used the word fact a couple times in the last post. I meant to say “scientific law”. Sorry for using the wrong terminology.
Think Harder said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
To ‘think’
Scientists debate things because we want to understand the details. You know - find things out and stuff. It’s fun, we enjoy it. It expands our worldview and lets us see the world in all its glorious details. We have a theory of evolution, lets investigate it more, find its every nuance, be able to marvel at the beauty and complexity of it. It broadens us.
Christian response? God did it.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm
Less credibility? Don’t give a flying fuck what you thinkto be honest if thats the best you can do. Sod off.
Alex said,
July 6, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Lets just all agree that none of us really know anything for sure. I personally believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything with his noodly appendages. Although I am quite partial to the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory too.
Alex Ludd said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Why can’t these “scientific” nuts (Will) capitalize, punctuate, or spell?
Jon said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Hey, Will. Most Christians don’t burn books, and we don’t tell women what they can do with their bodies. BUT, we do try to tell them what they CAN’T do to their babies bodiy, namely murder it.
Munan, when evolution becomes scientific FACT, it will cease to be a theory and will become a law. Like the law of gravity. But I agree with everything else you said. HEAR, HEAR!
Mark said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
People evolved from apes. Some have advanced more in evolution, some are nearer to roots. Creationists are the proof for this.
Outpatient said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
“Any human with a soul knows there is more to life than what we see.”
I guess I don’t have a soul. Actually I’m fairly positive I don’t have one. And neither do you Munan. Unfortunately your brain is simply not educated well enough to understand that you don’t.
Believer said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Putting Skeptic in the cage and let evolution have its way? Good idea. If he’s wrong, then there’s a slight chance this will result in a living specimen of the missing link.
But then again, if he’s right, there’s much more change that The Creator will interfere and show us another ape…
Florian said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Hello,
I like the last to comments a lot.
The tone in the creationism/evolution debate is very harsh and impolite on this site.
Then again, it’s a very fundamental debate. An wether one or the other is”true” makes a lot of diffenence.
I do believe that the Bible/Jesus are authentic. For me it doesn’t makea lot of difference to what degree the evolution of live takes place.Of course there exists a naturalgenetic selection and so some formof evolution.
Yes, it’s saidin the bible, that God created the world in 7 days, and it is said also, that for God one day is like 1000 years (perhaps meaning also, that for God 1 year is like 1.000.000 years? Or that time is not a restriction for him in any way?)
The basic question underneath the debate is a very old one:
Does a God exist, as some claim to know or believe? Or is there not a hyper-person like God? And if either, can that be proven?
God may have created by evolution in my opinion. Still I believe that the holy scriptures are true. And there are, by the way, scientific hints, that the biblical scripures may very well be at least hardly falsified over time (lots/loads of fragments and copies found at many different points of time and barely varying from each other. Of course I am aware that still some might say thay were “made up” in the first place, which I don’t believe =)
Philosophers and others have argued if it is at all possible, logically, to prove an existance of God. Others have questioned the boundaries of logic itself. Very, very interesting subjects.
Even if you are an atheist, these questions are very interesting. And the human nature to question and existance itself are mysteries (If you believe, or not believe in God/Jesus).
From my very basic understanding of logic:
There might be the God of the Bible
There might be other Energies or many Gods
There might be no God at all
The important thing is the implications that the differnet options have, if one of them turns out to be the pure truth.
Of course the question what truth is, is another interesting one.
One remark about the cage and the sign: If God/Jesus / his existance is the truth, then the thing would have to be considered quite rude/cynical/mocking.
I wonder if he considers answering the “welcomig/invitaion”. Then again, maybe it is not designed as a mere insult but as an honest probe, I don’t know.
Either way, I wouldn’t be too much surprised If something is in the cage one day.
Outpatient said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Jon, you are an idiot. There is no “law of gravity”. It is a theory as well. And will remain so forever. As will evolution. Please, read a book (besides the Bible.)
But what do I know? said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
To everyone.
I’m going to have to agree with Munan. Whatever you believe in, someone or something out there created us. I’m hoping that fact isn’t being debated.
I personally believe that God created us, and whatever evolution or adaptation we went through was part of the plan, but whatever your beliefs are, that’s fine. I’m not trying to start an argument about beliefs.
I do however think that both the person who put that sign and cage up and the person with the idea to respond with an equally terrible statement (skeptic), were both unnecessary and ignorant. If you think about it, why would God “magically” put an animal in that cage just to please you? If I had that kind of power and someone asked me to do something as insignificant as put an animal in a cage, I wouldn’t waste my time with someone like that, and I don’t believe God would either. They would just find some other excuse for how it happened, so what’s the point? Whoever put the sign up is the ignorant one. But what do I know?
Think Harder said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
There is in fact a law of gravity. Newtons law of gravity - Each object in the universe attracts each other body. However, scientific law is not a status that is achieved once a theory is proved. There is a law of gravity defining the what gravity is caused by and a theory of gravity that is an understanding, as yet incomplete, of the mechanics of how gravity works. This in no way undermines the theory that Jon is an idiot
anonymous said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
You people are extremely rude to one another How about you go outside and learn how to interact with humans.
And the theory of MACRO-Evolution is still being debated be quite a number of scientists because there is little to no evidence backing up the single-celled organisms can evolve to multi-celled organisms.
Josef said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I always have to chuckle when I hear these fundies try and disprove evolution with the line “where is the missing link”. That’s like looking at an almost completed jigsaw puzzle that depicts an entire house except that the piece showing the front door is not in place and insisting that the picture could be of anything but a house.
oh lawdy lawd said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Hahahahaha!!! this is hilarious! All these crazy religious people are getting offended. Awww boo hooo cry babies
Angel said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Newton’s laws of classical physics were later corrected by Einstein, Bohr, et al. This is the way of science. It is a self-correcting method based on observation.
The written or spoken version of the scientific method is called theory. In this sense, the word does not mean theoretical or hypothetical. It rather refers to a useful articulation of facts which are known to be true.
Science is from the Latin word for knowledge. Facts are agreed to be true when several different academic groups have produced consistent results in the lab, or have observed consistent data in the field.
Religion is outside of the realm of science. It deals with that which transcends normal experience, and makes claims which are not falsifiable. It is purely a matter of faith which, by definition, requires no proof.
One CHOOSES to be religious, but humantiy uses science to reveal the truth about the world around us. The entire truth may be unknowable. Some choose to fill the gap with faith; I prefer a more rational approach.
Ape-Man-Bible-Thumper-Darwinist said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Rant, rant, rant! Rave, rave, rave!! Rant, Rave, Rant, Rave!!! I hate God, I love God. You’re right, You’re wrong! NO, I’m right! NO, I’m right!
But I sure do love the art!
BTW: I support the “Jon’s an idiot” movement.
IamZOD said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Grammer aside in my statement but, “The absience of evidence is not the evidence of absience” - Sam Jackson (the actor) :D. See the problem with this, is the person who made this sing says “The BIBLE says God mad everything on the Earth”. Well shit there’s the problem, I believe in Yahway/Allah/God, but I only go tot he Bible for advice. I know alot of Atheist or Agnostics who always say the BIBLE this and the BIBLE that. It’s a book, not an encylopedia. Until someone gives me undisputable evidence, I’m gonna believe in God. Explain to me why people run into burning buildings to save someone else. Or why a tiger would be seraget mother too a wild calf. You can’t offer a complete scientific explination of things like that. But it’s what ever, I’m sure someone is gonna rip all over me, but remember God loves you
Angel said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
There is no missing link!
The physical evidence supporting the fact that evolution is the most fundamental aspect of biology is overwhelming.
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I believe religion, blind faith and stubborn ignorance to be the root of all evil in this world. Evolution is just a theory, a flawed one, but the best we’ve come up with so far. Education and the quest for knowledge and truth are so important. Blind faith in theories (religious or scientific) are what prevent mankind from developing and the excuse people use in order to control or exploit others. I draw conclusions (as do we all). I explore my own theories and I’m content to hold them without forcing them down other people’s throats. Above all, I try to keep an open mind. Live, love, learn and don’t try to educate ignorance or blind faith; it’s deaf as well as blind. Shame it isn’t mute!
Angel said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
IamZOD,….Spell check much?
Angel said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
“Blind faith in scientific theories” is a phrase that is both oxymoronic and moronic.
Random Dude said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHAHHAHHAHAAHAHHAHA
HAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHH
AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHH
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
Thats a funny pic
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
P.S.
I also believe that 98% of mankind are more easily ‘herded’ than the average flock of sheep and that television is the opiate of the masses (who said that first?). Religion has been used for years to control people and teach them their place in life. The 1851 census (England) revealed that less than half the population went to church any more. The government were concerned about the rioting happening on the streets at the time and feared a revolution. How to control them??? A three way plan of action was put into place by parliament:
1 Enforced state education where people were taught “what they need to know and no more” (they needed to keep people occupied and off the streets and they needed labour in the mills and mines).
2 The first police force, their job was to gaurd the gates of the large mansions in London belonging to the ruling classes.
3 If people won’t go to church, they’ll take the church to the people. The Salvation Army was formed.
Is this relevant to the creation/science debate here? Yes I believe so. It’s time we all stopped hanging on to age old theories which imprison our minds and prevent us from thinking, developing and acting for ourselves leaving us at the mercy of those who would exploit us. I wonder what mankind would be capable of without such shackles. I take science over ordered religion any day, but I’m not a slave to any particular theory and, as I said in my earlier post, I try to keep an open, questioning mind.
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
I was talking about blind faith in religion. Science at least tries to base it’s theories on fact. I think most people would have figured out what I meant without my having to explain….but this post is for the benefit of Angel…sigh!
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
As I said, shame it isn’t mute!
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Presupposing another stupid comment, Angle dear, I meant metaphorically mute. I know that you are typing. Sigh….
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Oops, typo, sorry Angel (not Angle)
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
My first two Submissions were not a personal attack on any person. I am not so insecure in myself that I need to try and make others feel inferior in order to make myself feel superior. I hope the Angels I don’t believe in are listening Sigh….
Have you expressed an original thought on here Angel or are your comments solely attacks on people who can string more than two sentences together? I can’t be bothered to look.
But what do I know? said,
July 6, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Is anyone else tired of seeing post after post being made by A Seeker of Truth? ….Just wondering….
GOD said,
July 6, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
I Like that.
The man came from Apes, thas why i create Fossils! ;D
Initial circumstances said,
July 6, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
First of all, this site made me laugh, a lot. Secondly, I agree that there is no way to prove that we all were created as we are right now by God. Thirdly, I have yet to be presented with any proof that we are all a result of universal randomness. I am NOT saying that I don’t agree with evolution. Evolution is a well documented theory, with much scientific evidence to back it up, and I support that theory. I do think that we, and all creatures, have evolved and are continuing to do so. My question is: what did we evolve from? Did we evolve from a random set of unique atoms in the universe that can never be repeated and/or tested (in other words, outside the realm of scientific understanding) or did we originally come from a creation of these living things by a diety of some sort (again, outside the realm of scientific understanding). I have yet to be told what the original circumstances were from which we evolved, and that is a question that I do not believe will ever be fully answered. So, yeah, a little argument to both sides.
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Ok I looked!
Scientific methods are not called theories Angel they are called methods. Scientific theories are termed hypothesis until deemed to have been proven and then become theories. Even ‘proven’ theories have later been deemed to be wrong as methods of research and science develops; therefore I eschew blind faith in those too.
I quote:
“One CHOOSES to be religious, but humantiy uses science to reveal the truth about the world around us. The entire truth may be unknowable. Some choose to fill the gap with faith; I prefer a more rational approach.”
Given that the above quote is from a person who chooses the name ‘Angel’ isn’t that a kind of oxymoron? Isn’t it also hypocritical to call oneself Angel when one harbours so much petty spitefulness in one’s little heart?
Before you have a go at my spelling, I’m English.
I suggest YOU use a spell check and also look up the meanings for the word humanity (spelled incorrectly in YOUR post) before attacking IamZOD or anyone else for that matter.
f*ck your god said,
July 6, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
anyways to the creationist: shut the f*ck up there is no prove whatsoever that your god exists so just shut up
LuciferComplex said,
July 6, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
A Seeker of Truth. de omnibus dubitandum. You put up the good fight, but in the face of dogma you fly like a moth towards a semi-truck. And, no, I have no idea who first said that. One site says some guy named Gerry Goldstein, who I could find nothing on, and of course Karl Marx was to have supposedly coined “Religion is the opiate for the masses”.
As for everybody else; all I got for you is Hail Eris! May your dogmas match your shirt.
But what do I know? said,
July 6, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
A Seeker of Truth,
You keep harassing others, namely Angel, and somehow back it up by saying, and I quote “I am not so insecure in myself that I need to try and make others feel inferior in order to make myself feel superior”, but you keep harassing Angel because of his name and his grammar! You have made your point and nobody has responded to anything you have said in the past few posts, so give it a rest.
no to ignorance said,
July 6, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
science is the process of finding fact… creationism is just another word for ” I give up!! Im tired of searching for facts. God created it all and its done… haha.. now to other things….” well thats how i see it.
Agnostic is the truth for everyone said,
July 6, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
To the people like skeptic-
I didn’t realize until recently that I was agnostic. Check wikipedia for the definition before you start blasting me. To me it means, I just don’t know. I know that I live in the US, I know I am married, I know I pay for gas and don’t want to. I don’t know if there is a god and neither do any of you. Most religions are based on faith- faith you will go to heaven, get virgins after killing others that don’t believe as you, etc. I was raised Christian and would like to believe I am more than just random molecules that created a sentient being.
To those trying to be scientific-
Be careful about stating items are facts… many facts have been dis-proven after further scientific research.
If you can’t view this image and find the humor, I would consider you a religious zealot. I also recently saw a site that explained it this way:
A Jewish zombie that is also his own father, died for us because we are all inherently evil due to a demon in the form of a snake who convinced a rib-woman to eat a knowledge empowering fruit. Yeah, I’d believe that.
I don’t care who you are- that’s funny, and so is the picture above.
I can prove gravity…you can’t prove to me that god(s) exists, so until it can be proven to me; I’m agnostic. In my opinion everyone is agnostic- the can’t prove one way or the other if god exists.
P.S. please don’t start a debate trying to prove god exists, because it is normally circular logic
Wheet said,
July 6, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
give it 40 years or so. by then we’ll have realized our mistakes and the world will undergo its own evolution. 2047
sonoran said,
July 6, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
Evolution is not a “theory” waiting to become a “law”. The theory of evolution will never become a law, because scientific theories do not become laws.
“Theory” in science means an explanation of how something happens. “Laws’ are simple descriptions of behavior, like the law of gravitation which makes no mention of how gravitation works, it just quantifies what it does. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does however have elements that explain some of the how of gravitation, among other things, and thus is, and always will be, a theory.
Most of what we consider Evolution is already considered scientific fact i.e. all animals on earth have evolved from earlier animals, the earth is billions of years old etc. The only part that is a “theory” is natural selection, which is Darwin’s proposed mechanism for Evolution… the “how”.
Theory doesn’t mean the same thing in science that it does in colloquial terms. Scientific theories aren’t ideas that need further proof to become factual, they are simply explanations of how things happen.
karl said,
July 6, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
you are all saying that evolution is a theory and saying that means its a thought no more. ask any scientist or any science teacher and the word theory is paramount to fact. gravity is a theory. plate tectonics. etc. theory in the scientific world means a proven idea. well, perhaps not proven. NOTHING is proven 100%. but rather unfalsifiable, which, for the idiots out there, means it cant be proven wrong. but more than that, it has to have whole boat load of evidence for it as well.
beyond that, show me a proof that god exists. one little tit-bit of evidence. cant can you. how many prayers answered? none? oh, im sorry, but im not suprised. read the bible, and read it thoroughly. it basically falsifies itself with its repeated contradictions. and answer me this. how could a god that is so “good and great” and “loving and compassionate” allow all the evil of the world? remember, he made us all, right? he knows all, which means he knew what would happen. so basically, he made people so they would be shit asses and kill innocents and get diseases. he already had it all planned out, right? go ahead, say hes punishing people. HE MADE THEM DO WHATEVER THEY DESERVE PUNISHMENT FOR!!! if he exists, he is making me write this, making me be an atheist. does that sound right? all knowing my ass. ‘existing’ my ass actually.
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
What Do I Know
But then the bible bashing always do have a problem with those who aren’t on their bandwagon. It’s ok for you to try to incite others to gang up against me but you try to make me be silent because I responded to an attack??? How very ‘Christian’ of you! You’re even worse than Angel (bully’s stick together). If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.
I was responding TO Angel’s harassment of myself and others.
What makes you think you can tell me what to do or not to do? I’ll write whatever I please whenever I please thank you very much. You ought to mind your own business and practice the teachings of the God you not only claim to believe in but who’s mind you purport to be able to read (as revealed in your 3:19pm post)
Quote:
“I wouldn’t waste my time with someone like that, and I don’t believe God would either.”
And YOU responded to my posts
For the What Do I Know and Angels of the world, I repeat, shame ignorance isn’t dumb as well as blind and deaf.
Bonder said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
There seems to be a general lack of understanding of what it means for something to be a scientific theory. Wikipedia defines a scientific theory as: “A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.” What this means that that in order to form a theory, a scientist looks at all the available data and observations pertaining to the topic and forms a coherent explanation that accounts for all the observed data. As such, it also predicts what we should see in future observations.
A scientific theory will never turn into a scientific law, as a scientific law is like a mathematical postulate: they don’t have complex external proofs, but are accepted as truth because they have always been observed to be true. For example: a gravitational law would be that massive bodies attract; whereas, a gravitational theory explains how that attraction behaves, so Newton’s equation F = GmM/r^2 is part of his theory of gravity which has since been improved by Einstein (that’s right, theories are always subject to revision…this is a good thing).
In much the same way, we have observed evolution in action: bacteria evolves anti-biotic resistance and some bacteria has evolved the ability to digest nylon, for example. That would be evolutionary fact. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for how these changes develop: how a mutation in the genome can create a change in organisms that is then naturally selected for and propagates through the species via reproduction.
Shandooga: I think you may be confusing the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis, a common mistake. Evolution makes no statement on how life originally formed; rather, it explains what happens after life has already formed. The theory that life developed from amino acids and nucleic acids and self replicating molecules developed on the early earth and then through their affinities for each other formed into the first single celled organisms and thus life is known as abiogenesis.
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
I’ve got nothing of interest to say in this post, simply exercising my right to leave one
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
In spite of the brainwashed closed-minded rabble’s attempt to deny that right.
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
You could always pray for deliverance. Ask your God to make me stop posting
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Lah la la lah lah tum te tum te tum
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Guess he wasn’t listening. Or is it that he died and made YOU master of the universe?
WDIK's God said,
July 6, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Seeker, you’re just being a douchebag now. Shut the fuck up.
Another Christian said,
July 6, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
I haven’t spent a great deal of time studying evolution. I have an idea about how it works but not thorough enough to make a solid defense. so I did a quick google search and found this site.
http://www.epm.org/articles/evolution.html
Some of those points don’t seem worthwhile but a few of them seem pretty solid to me.
I was pretty sure there was argument amongst scientists about evolution, at least the idea that we evolved from single celled organisms. You’ll notice toward the bottom of the link a list of books at least some of which appear to be from people with degrees in fields of science. A google search on Dr. Michael Behe revealed he has a PhD in biochemistry. So there’s your proof that some scientists are against evolution for the couple of peeps who said there was none.
Also from what i do understand there are a couple of things that have lead me to not believe in evolution
Why is it humans are the only species to evolve with the intelligence we have? Millions of others species evolved and we are the only ones who can think on the levels we do?
Why is it humans evolved very little in the way of natural defenses? Most other species have them do they not? The reason a trait evolves is because the random mutation caused an increase in the amount a species reproduces. It never happened for us that we evolved a way to effectively kill our enemies? we have no claws, weak teeth, we are physically inferior to most animals our size. Am i wrong here? Instead we we’re the only species who evolved to learn how to use weapons?
Bash on
GOD said,
July 6, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
I didn`t died.
A Seeker Of Truth said,
July 6, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Lol, glad to hear it GOD otherwise we’d have little Hitler’s thinking they were in charge.
Initial circumstances…
Loved your post. You made some interesting points. Randomness, Chaos theory, the Big Bang theory and Creation theory all presuppose the existence of something already in place (God, planets, stars, primordial soup etc etc). The problem is, where did THEY come from?
A baby in a womb can detect, gets glimpses of, the world it is going to be born into. If we could climb in there and tell it that it is glimpsing the world outside the womb and try to explain that world to it, the baby wouldn’t have the capacity to understand what we were saying. I feel that, as a species, we are as close to understanding our universal existence, origin, and destination as that babe in the womb is to comprehending the world it is about to be born in to. You’re right! We may never understand. It may well be an eternal question with infinite possible answers; which is why it’s good to keep an open mind.
Scrotchety said,
July 6, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Every coin has two faces, but on the edge of that coin is a third side that intertwines the two, keeps both faces contained to one reality, even if they are seemingly complete opposites.
Science has an open mind but closed heart. Religion has an open heart but closed mind. I offer a third choice, the meshing of two, that can make perfect sense to both parties: evolutionists & creationists alike.
If, dear reader, you can keep an open mind and heart, I hope you will consider and reflect this third possibility:
Let’s say somewhere in the last 10000 years ago there was life on a different planet. Maybe it was Mars, maybe it was the planet between Mars and Jupiter that obliterated and became the asteroid belt, maybe it’s some place further.
The conditions had been Earth-like, favorable to permit advanced life to develop. But, like a virus, the dominant species of The-Planet-That-Was overtaxed the resources, overpopulated, overconsumed, and life could not continue without imminent self-destruction. It was time to flee, to keep the flame of sentient life burning. They happen upon our blue planet Earth.
They observe protohominids within Africa. They remark upon the similarities between the two species. With a little genetic engineering, these first people become Aware. Perhaps the “missing link” will remain missing, because interference from outside sources caused these apemen to suddenly advance tens or hundreds of millions of years within a few generations.
And wouldn’t these newly Aware people consider the higher beings Gods? Is THE GOD merely the leader of alien propagators? Are his angels nothing but assistants, scientists, communications, security? Is the Devil and his underling demons nothing but dissenters? Is the battle of Heaven & Hell akin to: “No, God, this is wrong, we mustn’t meddle with this planet’s ecosystem. Let it take it’s own course… Prime directive, etc etc.” “Sorry, Satan, what we are doing is for the good, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. You’re a liar and a troublemaker, get off my ship and don’t mess with my new creations.”
Anyway, that’s -my- interpretation of events. Look at the pyramids. Man-made structures that have withstood the millenia, perhaps to convey a message within themselves to both science and religion.
–The Hebrew cubit is 25.025 inches, mentioned within the bible. Each side of the base of the Great Pyramid is 365.2422 cubits. That number is also the number of days it takes Earth to complete one full year, including the decimal we use every four years.
–The base of the pyramid is a square with right angles accurate to within one-twentieth of a degree. The sides are equilateral triangles and face exactly to the true north, south, east and west of the Earth.
These were borrowed from Patrick Heron’s “The Nephilim & The Pyramid of the Apocalypse.” http://www.nephilimapocalypse.com/shop/Scripts/6chapter1.asp
If you consider yourself scientific and open-minded, and consider religious folks close-minded, superstitious, or just flat-out stupid, then prove to us how open you are. Go over the facts listed in the link above and honestly ask yourself if ancient man was capable of those knowledges and feats without the help of some higher power.
—
Some believe if we used 100% of our minds we would be pure energy. Go back to the earliest stages of the Big Bang. Go back to when the universe was the size of a beach ball, a pea, a grain of sand, smaller yet. Imagine how much raw energy was pouring forth in those initial stages. Could such energy give rise to a perfect mind, self-aware? If 100% mind = pure energy, could 100% energy = pure mind? In the simplest mathematical forms, X = Y and Y = X.
There is a theory that as the universe expands, the universe gains more dark energy. The more dark energy, the faster time moves. The universe is expanding faster, and our perception of time is moving faster. A day in ancient Roman times would feel like 30 hours. Travel a few thousand years into the future, and the perception of a day will feel like 20 hours. I am not a physicist. This has been my take-away message from listening to professionals theorizing on an ever-expanding universe and the relevance of space, light and time.
If you kept going back in time, as the universe was smaller from less dark energy, wouldn’t the perception of a day become so bloated and out of proportion from our current standards as to not make sense? Whoever explained Genesis to Moses, you could only do it in such the simplest of terms. Moses would not understand the theoretics of physics or the correlations of time, energy, mass and light. I don’t think Moses quite got it right in Genesis, but I do not have trouble accepting the first day of lasting 6 billions years, or the third day lasting 3 billion years, or the 6th day lasting only a couple hundred million.
By the way, if anyone else subscribes to the theory the expanding universe is hastening time, let’s hear so.
Another Christian said,
July 6, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Another thought…
why would we evolve to reproduce as we do? So slowly… faster reproduction should take hold in evolution. Reproduce faster and your genes get spread around. When the mutation(s) happened that caused a reproduction to happen only once every year tops or as the mutations guided us in that direction those species should have never carried on. They don’t reproduce faster. Those should have been the random mutations that don’t cause evolution. But they did carry on… why?
Sandy Beach said,
July 7, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Hahahahaha!!! Good for you Seeker Of Truth! I’m also bored to death with people who have nothing more interesting or intelligent to contribute than sarcastic remarks towards others. You made some valid points about that as well as about the debate itself. Keep posting, please
I agree with Think, calling people names and putting them down doesn’t help present an argument but if people are gonna throw stones then they shouldn’t cry when they get a boulder thrown back at em. Hee hee hee, funny funny funny.
Science is Rock said,
July 7, 2007 @ 3:50 am
Religion is Scissors.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/images/articles/trever_small.gif
Angel said,
July 7, 2007 @ 7:41 am
seeking
“Blind faith in theories (religious or scientific)…”
This is the phrase to which I was referring. If I was mistaken about your intentions, I apologize.
‘Humanity’ was obviously a typo. There are more errors in the first word of the post to which I referred.
Another Christian
“Why is it humans evolved very little in the way of natural defenses?”
Natural selection is the engine of evolution. It is merely a statement of the observation that nothing succeeds like success. Intelligence combined with the dexterity of an opposable thumb, and many other factors seem to have been extremely successful adaptations. No other large vertebrate exists in such great numbers as we. Our intelligence allows us to invent and fabricate tools (as you mentioned). These tools can include defensive artifacts such as armor and shelter, or offensive devices such as weapons.
“Why is it humans are the only species to evolve with the intelligence we have?”
Why not? Any characteristic which confers an advantage is “selected’ merely by its contribution to reproductive success of the species. There is no evidence supporting that evolution proceeds in any particular direction. Genetic mutations occur by chance and by genetic drift. The mechanisms of mutations are poorly understood, but we know they always occur. Mutations which are associated with a trait that allows the species to survive long enough to reproduce in sufficient numbers to successfully compete for resources are retained. Mutations which are deleterious are weeded out by the failure of those endowed with such a mutation to survive.
Species which compete most vigorously with each other are those which occupy the same, or similar, ecological niches. The fossil record informs us that the hominid family tree is rather bushy, with many branches. All but one were evolutionary dead ends. It seems that we out-competed, or possibly killed off, the other hominids (e.g. homo- neanderthalensis) with which our ancestors coexisted.
Of course, we have no way of knowing the exact events which lead to our being the only sentient species. But if we engaged in warfare with another hominid species, the way we do with each other, it is possible that our superior intelligence allowed us to be more effective warriors than other hominids.
In any case, the point is moot in that being the only sentient species doesn’t, in itself confer any special evolutionary status to our species. There is no observed facet of biology which would preclude this possibility.
This is the point at which one may choose to find comfort in religion. Being sentient, we desire purpose. I choose a more secular perspective, and see our brief lives as ends in themselves, not needing any “higher” meaning or purpose, or creator.
We all hear the hoofbeats, but the secular among us think “horses”, while the more superstitious think “zebras”, or even “unicorns”.
Angel said,
July 7, 2007 @ 7:49 am
BTW, the name Angel is meant to be ironic. It is a statement that all that is purported to be supernatural is instead quite natural, and part of being human.
Our rather long reproductive cycle, and the even lengthier period required for maturity are byproducts of many biological characteristics, not the least of which is our complex brain. The fact that there are 6 billion of us on the planet today attests to the success of intelligence as a positive adaptation, easily worth the resources required.
sonoran said,
July 7, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Science is willing to consider anything that can be imagined. But it demands demonstrable evidence of those things; and that evidence, and how it was gathered, must be explained. Others must be able to demonstrate the same evidence; and as others come up with new tests the idea must continue to proved valid.
This is a ruthless and relentless process. Old ideas that held up for a long time are cast aside as new evidence emerges. I suppose science has “closed heart” in that it will have nothing to do with ideas that cannot produce good supporting evidence… no matter how good those ideas might make us feel; no matter how vested we might be in them; no matter how intertwined they might be with our morality or culture. Science cares nothing for sentiment, it demands proof, and this demand never ends.
Science is a methodology devised by humans. It is a way for humans to get around our own inability to accurately determine causality. The fact is we’re terrible at it, and the prescientific world was a mismash of goofball notions about spirits, ethers, demons and fairies.
Science makes us uncomforatable because it reveals that we’re really just minor entities in the universe. The universe does not resonate with our moral sense of right and wrong. Moral concepts are very important to US, but have no meaning beyond our own skulls because they are simply our evolved mechanism for living in social groups. We’re an infintesimally small group of inhabitants of what amounts to a mote of dust in a sunbeam. Our myths are mostly exercises in self-aggrandisement. There’s a reason they all originate in the iron age or earlier, they require an enviroment where rigor and critical thinking aren’t applied.
Angel said,
July 7, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Sonoran, I agree with your insightful posting.
Thanks
Seeker,
Whom did I harass, the pot or the kettle?
Cartoons Fans Lounge said,
July 7, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
[...] X Men xbox We look forward to seeing what He comes up with. Funny. classic X Men 2 action figuresread more | digg story RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Cartoons Fans Lounge [...]
Prime News Blog » Blog Archive » wonder woman drawings sketches Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) said,
July 8, 2007 @ 6:38 am
[...] woman drawings sketches We look forward to seeing what He comes up with. Funny. hot wonder womanread more | digg [...]
Cartoons Plugin » Blog Archive » futurama - frys holophoner lay mp3 Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) said,
July 8, 2007 @ 9:38 am
[...] frys holophoner lay mp3 We look forward to seeing what He comes up with. Funny. futurama 1st episoderead more | digg [...]
Danny said,
July 22, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
wow all you need to say is the word “evolution” on the internet and you get an amazing infusion of ideas… bravo!
haha said,
July 24, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Why is America so religious? It’s backward.
Ashley said,
July 29, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
“We have the Newton’s Laws of Physics (those are true no matter what), but we don’t have the Law of Evolution. We have the theory.”
In that case, isn’t gravity just a theory?
SiriS said,
July 30, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Evolution IS a fact. The THEORY, which is as close to fact as something can get in science, is that is occurs long-term and that we all evolved from the same organism.
DC10 said,
August 3, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Christians suck lol
Grim said,
August 15, 2007 @ 3:07 am
Theory and proof are both the same as “proof” of something is often heard from others(”scientists have discovered a black hole”). And even “proof” observed by yourself can be “false” because of tricks the mind can play,think of magicians and illusionists.
The belief in something to be fact is the only thing that makes it a fact.
Experimental Pole » Blog Archive » Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) said,
October 28, 2007 @ 8:55 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
bwhahahaha said,
February 14, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Americans are soooooooooooooo stupid.
mibes said,
May 13, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
[Americans are soooooooooooooo stupid.] - seconded
kjdamrau said,
May 21, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
I am descended from Germans. There are still Germans.
Why does anybody bother trying to engage in intellectual discourse with the creationist? They lack the intellectual tools to do anything more than frustrate us.
Pat them on the head. Smile at them as you would a retarded child. Send them off to the intellectual darkness of their bronze age myths.
Pagancornflake said,
May 29, 2008 @ 9:20 am
I wonder how many people have had an epiphany after reading all of these comments..
haha said,
July 24, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Why is America so religious? It’s backward.
bwhahahaha said,
February 14, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Americans are soooooooooooooo stupid.
@haha, Its pretty much a cultural paradigm at this stage. Often when I reveal to another American that I am an atheist (i.e. I possess a logical, deductive form of reasoning in the context of origins and the necessity of faith in contemporary society) they recoil or judge me as some kind of malcontent. There is urgent need of a paradigm shift in America which (judging from their imperialistic foreign policy) will probably take the form of another war. Sad but true IMHO
@bwhahahaha, no, your attempt at generalising is stupid. I have an IQ of 135, making me more intelligent than approximatley 80% of people (I am also an American, in case you are lacking in deductive skills). I wont waste any more time on you.
Illuminatiscott said,
August 15, 2008 @ 8:37 am
I find that creationists in general are caught in their own microcosm of logic, wherein logic is based on God and thus using any form of logic which does not refer back to God is incorrect logic. It’s a closed loop, and in most cases it’s nigh impossible to extricate them from such a cycle of ignorance.
There is no debate that evolution occurs. The debate is how, why, etc., but there has been not a single scientific paper published by a biologist, geneticist, or any other *qualified* individual which casts doubt on the fact that evolution, in some form or another, occurs.
Someone will respond to the above comment saying that to be “qualified” one has to already believe in evolution, and thus the system is biased. Not so: the California court system recently upheld a California university decision to deny course credit from courses which openly denied evolution. This is an example of an impartial outside observer (court) ruling that evolution is necessary to proper scientific understanding.
Now, some of you will say that the courts and thus governments are biased against Christians. Guess what: take a look at any damn US currency you own and then tell me that the US government supports atheism and science over religion. Americans are living in a religiously oppressive country where Christianity, or some Judaic religion, is a requirement for any sort of public office: there has been only one publicly open atheist in history elected to congress. If you fundamentalists continue claiming that you’re under attack, under-appreciated and repressed, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you’re telling the truth.
We atheists shall rise.