Evolution Questions

[Monfang]

To the complaint about my sources... I already gave it to you, but I don't think anyone read it so I'll post it again.

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

 

That's from a real "scientist".

[Kuroikaze]

Also, scientist usually referrers to people doing actual research and discovering new things, not people who teach. We already have a word to describe them, "teachers"

 

So a teacher can't be a scientist and a scientist can't be a teacher?

 

I did not say that. I said that a teacher is not a scientist just because they teach science. Geez

 

And weather or not an engineer is a scientist is besides the point, he is not involved in a field related to evolution so he is likely to know more about it than you.

[Jeremy Howard]

The problem with articles on science, and even the bible is that it was written by man. There are many books of the Bible not included, and who's to say it was accurately translated. It's known that early jewish priests preached the bible and only they knew how to read it, which lead to no one really knowing if it's the truth. The same goes for scientists. Who's to say the studies we have are correct? There are many that are because it can be proven by the eye, but for theories we cannot prove them. Carbon dating and any other form of dating can be completely false. The bible can be completely false. Religion vs Evolution is a debate that will go on forever simply because neither can be proven at this point in time. You trust in scientists research the same way I trust that the bible is God inspired and is the way to salvation.

 

 

 

You make me laugh. Claiming that I believing in science is equal to believing in god. A set of bronze age myths with no facts to back them up is NOT equal to believing in a theory like evolution which has been backed up by mounts of evidence and data. You do not see the data because you have not looked, your ignorance on even the most basic concepts in science is proof of that.

 

Also, on a final note. If we have no purpose in life, why do we do good? If when we die nothing happens why bother with consequences? Why not murder, rape, steal, pillage? If theirs nothing to fear after death of burning in an eternal hell why should we bother with the consequences on Earth? It's more than because we want to live comfortably here. I believe in God and Christ because of my faith. I cannot prove the bible wrong, nor can I prove it right. There are many scientific facts in the bible that were written before many were proven. (i.e. that the universe constantly expands, the earth revolves around the sun, ect ect)

 

Seriously? would you go out and murder rape and steal if you thought there was no god? Is the only reason you behave morally because you fear wrath and punishment if you do not? I pity you if that is true.

 

I make my own purpose, I do not need to be handed one like a puppet.

 

I have done my own research on evolution, and mostly everything I hear on the forums is hear say or even common sense if evolution is true. I never said believing in science is equal to believing in God. Don't know where you got that from. All i said is that the bible contains science in it which is FACTUAL and PROVEN. Evolution is flawed in so many ways, and it's really a useless debate. Even Charles Darwin believes the universe is too complex for it to have not been created by God. I've stated many other evidences that go overlooked or ignored along with questions which simply means you don't have the answers, which is fine, and it doesn't by any mean it disproves anything.

 

I behave morally because I know right from wrong, if God didn't create us we would behave more like the animal kingdom, where killing another for food is common and accepted. Mothers killing their own children for food. Man is above animals and we have a duty to protect the earth and inhabit it. We do not behave like animals because God has commanded us not to. If he did not instill the basic right and wrong in us, it would be survival of the fittest.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I have to ask why after getting so many thought out responses on specific questions raised about evolution has the conversation now gone to throwing out numbers of scientists who may or may not be creationists? When an explanation is offered one should either follow up with any further questions, find a substantial flaw in the reasoning and pursue it, or concede the point. Instead you are seeming to ignore the new information and change the subject to something unrelated.

[Kuroikaze]

I have done my own research on evolution, and mostly everything I hear on the forums is hear say or even common sense if evolution is true. I never said believing in science is equal to believing in God. Don't know where you got that from.

 

Oh I don't know, maybe when you said this

 

You trust in scientists research the same way I trust that the bible is God inspired and is the way to salvation

 

All i said is that the bible contains science in it which is FACTUAL and PROVEN. Evolution is flawed in so many ways, and it's really a useless debate. Even Charles Darwin believes the universe is too complex for it to have not been created by God. I've stated many other evidences that go overlooked or ignored along with questions which simply means you don't have the answers, which is fine, and it doesn't by any mean it disproves anything.

 

Deciding evolution is bunk because I ( a non-scientist) cant answer all of your questions is a bit silly. Truthfully though we have adequately answered all your questions because quite frankly your questions are pretty silly and reveal you need to do a LOT more research. Maybe try talking to people who actually do this stuff for a living.

 

I behave morally because I know right from wrong, if God didn't create us we would behave more like the animal kingdom, where killing another for food is common and accepted. Mothers killing their own children for food. Man is above animals and we have a duty to protect the earth and inhabit it. We do not behave like animals because God has commanded us not to. If he did not instill the basic right and wrong in us, it would be survival of the fittest.

 

 

Survival of the fittest does NOT mean murder, rape and steal. If you cannot understand this I don't know what to say

[Ancey]

 

I have done my own research on evolution, and mostly everything I hear on the forums is hear say or even common sense if evolution is true. I never said believing in science is equal to believing in God. Don't know where you got that from. All i said is that the bible contains science in it which is FACTUAL and PROVEN. Evolution is flawed in so many ways, and it's really a useless debate. Even Charles Darwin believes the universe is too complex for it to have not been created by God. I've stated many other evidences that go overlooked or ignored along with questions which simply means you don't have the answers, which is fine, and it doesn't by any mean it disproves anything.

 

I behave morally because I know right from wrong, if God didn't create us we would behave more like the animal kingdom, where killing another for food is common and accepted. Mothers killing their own children for food. Man is above animals and we have a duty to protect the earth and inhabit it. We do not behave like animals because God has commanded us not to. If he did not instill the basic right and wrong in us, it would be survival of the fittest.

 

I do think any science that the bible contains is little, sparse, or simply interpreted to make it seem that way.

 

The first few verses even do something screwy... light is created before the light source. The moon is also said to make light, even if it is just a refraction of light. π=3 in the bible- the number of animals existing on the earth could not have fit on the ark, the mixture of salt and fresh water would have killed most marine life, the change in pressure and oxygen levels from the floods... I'm mostly just talking about Genesis so far, too.

 

We don't behave like animals because evolution first made us socially complex- it was a survival issue- those in groups survive better- look at our cousin primates like Chimpanzees. And things like "Mothers killing their children for food" is also a survival issue- if food is not available, sadly, the child is going to be expendable in some species, because if you can survive until food is in abundance, you can reproduce again. Humans are a bit different, in that we prefer to sacrifice ourselves for our children instead- also a tactic of spreading the genes better: we're simply conditioned by nature. Things like morals and right or wrong are social constructs that ensure a better situation for us to reproduce. The thing is we also evolved a conscious mind, and so that just changed things. I personally don't know when it happened, but it certainly increased our ability to reproduce and inhabit to the point where reproduction is not longer the only point to life.

 

fitness is not who is the biggest baddest killer rapist on the block- it's the ability to reproduce and ensure that your offspring reproduces. That's all it is. Bigger and badder does not equal more fit.

 

*sigh*... Evolution is friggin' amazing.

[Monfang]

If fitness is the ability to reproduce.. then why do we scorn rapists and polygamist or people who mate with children who are able to carry children? Why do we support monogamy and abstinence and our mates scorn us when we cheat? Why do gays and lesbians exist?

[Guest Valk0010]

If fitness is the ability to reproduce.. then why do we scorn rapists and polygamist or people who mate with children who are able to carry children? Why do we support monogamy and abstinence and our mates scorn us when we cheat? Why do gays and lesbians exist?

Because to survive we had to evolve into our brains a sense of moral ethics. A anarchist species wouldn't be able to survive.

 

Also the process isn't perfect(its biological) so you get weird things.

[Ancey]

If fitness is the ability to reproduce.. then why do we scorn rapists and polygamist or people who mate with children who are able to carry children? Why do we support monogamy and abstinence and our mates scorn us when we cheat? Why do gays and lesbians exist?

 

Firstly, Gays and lesbians exist because it is a gene that just randomly happens: and apparently is often carried by straight people who then reproduce. It may also depend upon hormones received during fetal development, and possibly a bit by how the child was nurtured (though I have doubts on that last point).

 

And secondly, not everyone practices abstinence, or even practices Monogamy.

 

And on the other points: I can say I am not quite sure.

 

I can certainly say that rape is frowned upon because we are such social creatures: rape is not an act of spreading genes, for the most part: it is usually an act of violence and frustration on the part of the rapist: reproduction has little to do with it.

 

And here's another thing: In biblical times, the Virgin Mary would have likely been 13/15 years old. This is perhaps an issue of shifting morality: as time goes on, we just learn more, we consider more, we have a conscience and also, very importantly, empathy. I can't say why exactly morality shifts, but it does. The same is likely applied to polygamy. Polygamy used to be and is still practiced in places.

 

And monogamy is certainly helpful because it can ensure that all the parent's efforts are put into raising the child both participants created.

 

And mates tend to scorn you when you cheat because they have strong chemical reactions associated with you- believe it or not, love is a lot of chemical reactions: the release of endorphins and feel-good hormones and when you cheat- your mate is not going to be happy with you, because you don't share the same feelings. Of course, people still do cheat and usually, the cheaters are looking for the pleasure of sex, not the child.

 

Children are actually a drain of energy and resources- while kids are amazing, humans have the ability to choose when they want a child.

[Monfang]

*laughs* Question for you "Evolutionists".

 

Why are we finding "unfossilized" dinosaur bones?

 

And what about the point in the following link about how dinosaur bones contain blood tissue that should have disintegrated if they where 65 million years old?

 

http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v9i7n.htm

 

ohohohoh.. read this one too.

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm

[Shyone]

*laughs* Question for you "Evolutionists".

 

Why are we finding "unfossilized" dinosaur bones?

 

And what about the point in the following link about how dinosaur bones contain blood tissue that should have disintegrated if they where 65 million years old?

 

http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v9i7n.htm

 

ohohohoh.. read this one too.

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm

You didn't understand a word I wrote.

[Monfang]

Debunk this please.

 

http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v6i8f.htm

 

And this..

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i11f.htm

[Monfang]

Evolution is debunked. You must a lot of faith to trust it. Especially after reading information like this.

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

[Guest Valk0010]

Evolution is debunked. You must a lot of faith to trust it. Especially after reading information like this.

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

If true then what makes the myths in genesis right then? If true I should just become a diest?

 

Btw, its a apologetics website. Try something scholorly and not with a predetermined conclusion.

 

So evoluvtion is debunked because a religiuos group is grabbing for straws. Look up some books by christiansthat accept evolutionary theory.

[Monfang]

Evolution is debunked. You must a lot of faith to trust it. Especially after reading information like this.

 

http://www.ridgenet....sage/topics.htm

If true then what makes the myths in genesis right then? If true I should just become a diest?

 

Btw, its a apologetics website. Try something scholorly and not with a predetermined conclusion.

 

So evoluvtion is debunked because a religiuos group is grabbing for straws. Look up some books by christiansthat accept evolutionary theory.

 

....religious? This is science. Pure and simple. Instead of using accusations please read it and debunk it.

And the "myths" in Genesis have been looked at as a scientific point of view and when people put the dogma about evolution out of there head and think, it all falls together.

[Guest Valk0010]

Evolution is debunked. You must a lot of faith to trust it. Especially after reading information like this.

 

http://www.ridgenet....sage/topics.htm

If true then what makes the myths in genesis right then? If true I should just become a diest?

 

Btw, its a apologetics website. Try something scholorly and not with a predetermined conclusion.

 

So evoluvtion is debunked because a religiuos group is grabbing for straws. Look up some books by christiansthat accept evolutionary theory.

....religious? This is science. Pure and simple. Instead of using accusations please read it and debunk it.

And the "myths" in Genesis have been looked at as a scientific point of view and when people put the dogma about evolution out of there head and think, it all falls together.

You are just giving links and say debunk. Why should i write a book to satisfy your talking points. Just linking stuff is not making a claim its being dishonest. I should only go as far as responing in kind and guess what I am,

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/

 

Learn abit about mythology and you will find genesis fits quite well as mythos and is a creation myth in the same sense as a hindu or native american belief.

[Wertbag]

Its one of the biggest problems with internet debates, the flood of links. Its not actually a group of people asking valid questions, but people comparing others writings. It should be researched on its own then brought up if you can't find answers yourself. Asking people to work through debunking entire websites is just a task most people don't have the time or inclination to do. You can't take failure to spend hours working through pages of information to mean someone couldn't, really just means they have better things to do.

 

And what about the point in the following link...

http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v9i7n.htm

ohohohoh.. read this one too.

http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v8i9f.htm

And I can counter with this one: http://www.answersincreation.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm but really what does a link war prove?

[skepticalme]

Evolution is one of the most proven theories that exist. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity. It is just that creationist, who are used to easy answers, try to look for easy answers to very complex issues. As a result they do not understand the evidence and read what they want to into it. Monfang, most of what you think you know about evolution is misinformation put foreward by people who have an interest in disproving it. I suggest that if you really want to take a stab at debunking evolution then you should learn what it really is and how it works. If you sincerely want to learn evolution you should start with Dr. Zachary Moore's podcast called "Evolution 101" on iTunes. At the very least it wil answer most of your questions and give you the proper vocabulary to offer a serious discussion on evolution. However I doubt you will put forth that much effort. I get the impression that you are contempt in your ignorance and don't want to understand what evolution really is. For you, believing the misinformation makes it easier for you to dismiss. I have never met a single person who both understoud evolution and dismissed it. Everyone I have ever spoke to on the issue either understood and excepted it or they stuck thier fingers in thier ears and hummed as to not polute thier minds with an idea not consistant with their preconceived views. I can tell you that I have read both the "Bible" and "On the Origin of Species" and that only one is still on my bookshelf. I put forth the effort to understand both before I decided which one I excepted. I don't know a single evolution denier that can say the same. I invite you to break the trend. In addition to the "Evolution 101" podcast, thier are also several great books on evolution by Richard Dawkins, the most recent of which is "The Greatest Show on Earth". Check them out and then come back. If you do this I will engage you in as much discussion on the topic as you like. I will be happy to answer any remaining question that you might have on the topic to the best of my ability. But you have to put forth some effort to try and learn what it is that you are trying to debunk.

[Monfang]

Alright, lets start with questions then.

 

throughout history, very high respecting civilizations have written down VERY detailed accounts of "mythical" creatures. That wouldn't cause a fuss... except the "mythical" creatures.. sound a lot like dinosaurs. Thunderbird, the griffin, sea monsters, the Chinese dragons. You can try and counter that they found the bones and made assumptions.. but the assumptions match what we say today about the very same creatures.

 

Also, archoaligests have often found animal bones that didn't fit the common animals but, get this, fit DINOSAURS! But how can that be? The bones should be under the ground, not scatered about where animals are kept.

 

And what about pictures of dinosaurs on cave walls and in pottery? How do they know of creatures that look like that?

 

And what about the dinosaur footprints in famous parks (the parks that I speak of is mentioned in the website I list below. And I mean the SITE not the PAGE.) The park says that during the age of dinosaurs, the river where the footprints are found wasn't there. BUT! The footprints have always been found following the river. How is this possible when there is no river to follow?

 

Instead of improperly referencing someone else's material, I am providing this that really shakes the foundations that dinosaurs died out long before humans where here. Everything I state here is gone on into more detail on there.

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i1f.htm

[Monfang]

Change to point above. (couldn't edit cause I double posted by accident. I meant to say "dinosaur bones where found in human settlements where animals where kept."

[Monfang]

Going back to how humans evolved the ability to see rape as bad because it is about pleasure instead of reproduction.

 

Why don't dolphins have the same idea when they have sex for pleasure and are often seen raping and killing both dolphins and humans for reasons far from hunger? even kidnapping females.

 

http://www.broowaha.com/articles/496/dolphins-a-hidden-evil

 

Edited to add link so you don't complain about lack of a source.

[skepticalme]

Alright, lets start with questions then.

 

throughout history, very high respecting civilizations have written down VERY detailed accounts of "mythical" creatures. That wouldn't cause a fuss... except the "mythical" creatures.. sound a lot like dinosaurs. Thunderbird, the griffin, sea monsters, the Chinese dragons. You can try and counter that they found the bones and made assumptions.. but the assumptions match what we say today about the very same creatures.

 

Uh, none of those creatures resemble any known dinosaur. I think you are being a little to imaginative there. The griffin for example is specifically half lion, half bird. People imagine all kinds of creatures and assign them to catagories. When someone describes BIgfoot to you for the first time most people say, "Oh that sounds like a giant ape." When they retell the description to someone else the describe Bigfoot AS A GIANT APE. Over time the popular image of the creature morphs into that discribtion. Another example is the Loch Ness Monster. It has had many forms over the centuries until someone said,"Hey, that kind of looks like a plesiosaur." Now all descriptions of Nessy perfectly fit that of a plesiosaur even though the earliest describtions looked nothing like that. Its the same with sea monsters, they all look like giant squids now. Thats because everybody knows what a giant squid is suposed to look like, so thats what they get portrayed as. The appearance of mythical creatues tells you more about the pop-culture of the ones reading the describtion than anything else.

 

Also, archoaligests have often found animal bones that didn't fit the common animals but, get this, fit DINOSAURS! But how can that be? The bones should be under the ground, not scatered about where animals are kept.

 

I really don't know what you are talking about here. Are you talking about fossils found near the surface? Thats is due to erosion. If you don't understand how this works you really need to learn some geology as well.

 

And what about pictures of dinosaurs on cave walls and in pottery? How do they know of creatures that look like that?

 

I've seen pictures of four legged blobs that could be anything. More of an ink-blot test than anything else. Maybe those pictures were originally supposed to be rhinos or mamoths but thousands of years of weathering made them into an amorphous blob that can be whatever your imagination projects. Heck, if you set the Mona Lisa outside for ten thousand years it might look like a snarling T-Rex afterwards.

 

And what about the dinosaur footprints in famous parks (the parks that I speak of is mentioned in the website I list below. And I mean the SITE not the PAGE.) The park says that during the age of dinosaurs, the river where the footprints are found wasn't there. BUT! The footprints have always been found following the river. How is this possible when there is no river to follow?

 

I didn't find the list of parks, maybe you could point them out to me. However, if you are refering to Glen Rose then you are in luck. I live nearby and have visited this trackway. Its not really near a river, more of a creek that I could walk across.This trackway DOES NOT follow the creek. The tracks actually disapear into a nearby hillside. What has actually happened is that this creek has eroded the topsoil and exposed the bedrock reveiling a portion of the trackway. What is exposed is just where the two intersect. If the creek had formed anywhere else in the immeadiate area it would have simply exposed a different section of the same trackway.

 

Instead of improperly referencing someone else's material, I am providing this that really shakes the foundations that dinosaurs died out long before humans where here. Everything I state here is gone on into more detail on there.

 

http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v3i1f.htm

 

Improperly referencing other people's material? That seems to be exactly what the the site you linked to does. What isn't vague or misleading was debunked long ago. Find better sources. Better yet, pick up an actual book on evolutionary biology and actually study the subject.

[skepticalme]

Going back to how humans evolved the ability to see rape as bad because it is about pleasure instead of reproduction.

 

Why don't dolphins have the same idea when they have sex for pleasure and are often seen raping and killing both dolphins and humans for reasons far from hunger? even kidnapping females.

 

http://www.broowaha....s-a-hidden-evil

 

Edited to add link so you don't complain about lack of a source.

 

 

Most people would take that as evidence against objective morality and therefore evidence against god. But to answer your question, people live in much more complex societies than dolphins. Early tribal humans probably lived in a culture similar to the one of the dolphins live in now.

[Wertbag]

Everything I state here is gone on into more detail on there.

http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v3i1f.htm

More link comparisons... I counter your link with this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html which lists most of the fossil claims, and this http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/a-faint-image-under-a-natural-bridge-in-utah which specifically talks about the dinosaur image in Utah and http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/magazines/Creation/1997/pioneers.htm which talks about ancient people designing drawings from fossils.

 

One in particular you might be interested in is a creationist site which explains arguements Christians should not use (which includes the dinosaur tracks at Paluxy): http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

[Rorsel]

Look guys I'm not trying to sound rude here, but why are we answering Monfang? It's plainly obvious that he does not, at all, have any interest in Evolution. All he wants to do in this thread is to "prove" that Evolution is false. He's trolling, plain and simple. He's posting random links from various creationist sites, rather than providing any honest questions or bothering to learn anything.

Nothing we say to him will make him change his mind at all, he's hell-bent on "disproving" Evolution, be it by pointing out prior-frauds, which were discovered by scientists(Hey monfang, how do you explain away all of the Creationist hoaxes? Hmmmmm? I thought bearing false-witness was a sin?) Or by pointing out supposed issues with Evolution. He's a troll, nothing more, nothing less.