Question for people that believe in evolution

[footprints]

It was a typo I meant cause. I was replying to your above statement where you said, "All that is required to challenge anything, is to have evidence to support your cause." And I was wondering if you have a different cause, what your evidence is.

This would be dependant on what you would class as a different cause?

My cause is truth, does that align with your cause? Personally I don't care whether the cause for evolution or the cause for creation is the greater cause, nor do I really care if both the cause for evolution and the cause for creationism coexist or even if they one in the same. Truth is all I am looking for.

I do not have any evidence other than that available to all of humanity. Some evidence comes from academia, some from religions, some from ancient cultures. As long as the evidence is true and supportable, I do not care where it comes from.

 

[footprints]

Just so there are no misunderstandings... are you actually saying it is bad that people have to provide proof for their beliefs?

That Kerr would depend on the perspective which I looked upon it.

Is it bad that something should be supportable; I would say that having support for a personal belief, is a good thing.

Is it bad that mankind has come to a place in time, where people in general cannot be trusted and taken on face value; personally I would say that is a bad thing.

Is it a bad thing that for a person in science to put forward a different hypothesis, than that of the status quo and be denied funding, just because a person above them believes it isn't so; personally I would say that was a bad thing.

Is it a bad thing to have to provide support to prove innocence or guilt in a court of law; personally I would say that was a good thing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh please, your quote was "you as a Freethinker have a higher standard."

Well I do. I have high standards fora lot of things. When it comes to understanding the natural world I have high standards. What's the matter with that?

You are starting to sound like a person who blieves they are going to heaven and everybody else is going to hell.

I don't believe in either so you've got the wrong person....:sorry1:

It was a very bigoted statement and not a higher standard but a lower standard. Or at the very least a standard that mirrors the status quo of other belief patterns around you.

It's obvous that's how you perceive it and you are entitled to your beliefs...

Everybody is a Freethinker, it is just that people think differently and assign different values to things.

No, some people are sheep.....babbling the same old tired creationist mantra they were brainwashed and spoon fed and buck at those who come presenting the evidence that shatters their narrow mindedness.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay i am a blind idiot so show me or atleast explain to me how it works then? how has observing fruit flies shown you that a flie will one day turn into a dog? i don't want to argue creation versus evolution. just looking for facts.

I remember being a teenager and being in a Sunday School class where the teacher said, "If you believe in evolution, you believe that you could give birth to a fish." Your statement about fruit flies turning into dogs makes about the same amount of sense to me. Go to the Deseret Book website and see if you can find "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring. It could be out of print, but if you can't get it through Deseret Book, you might be able to find it online somewhere. I'm sure you will be familiar with Henry Eyring. He was Henry B. Eyring's father. (For those who don't have a clue who either of these "Henrys" are, the father was probably the most well-known LDS scientist who has ever lived; the son is currently an LDS Apostle and First Counselor to the LDS Prophet.) He explains why he believes in evolution and explains how it is entirely compatible with LDS theology to do so. Here is one of his statements that I absolutely love: "Animals seem pretty wonderful to me. I'd be content to discover that I share a common heritage with them, so long as God is at the controls."

 

[footprints]

I see you like to make it more difficult for yourself by over simplifying the ToE...no wonder you appear to have issues with it. If the theory is incorrect then some one needs to step forward with evidence that it is. So far no one has been able to convince the masses that evolution is an incorrect theory yet you have theist like this guy right here, who is a biologist, making a case for evolution by presenting the testable data (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M). Take the data and test til you're blue in the face and you will in no doubt come to the same conclusion that smarter minds have reached and that is Evolution remains a valid theory.

If your perception tells you I have issues with the theory of evolution, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I have never said nor concluded that evolution isn't a valid theory, again you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Okay i am a blind idiot so show me or atleast explain to me how it works then? how has observing fruit flies shown you that a flie will one day turn into a dog? i don't want to argue creation versus evolution. just looking for facts.

This is a common misconception Creationists have about evolution.

Evolution doesn't predict any such thing. In fact, such an occurance would debunk evolution. Think of a population of organisms with a set of "traits" among them (let's keep this simple). Because of the environment this population lives in, some traits will be better suited to it than others. So as the generations pass by, that population as a whole will predominantly have traits among them that are favourable to that particular environment.

Evolution is not about one species changing into another species that already exists. It's slow, gradual change over time in a population. By "change", I mean allele frequency.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Actually...Isn't he a Dr. of Philosiphy holding a PhD in that field of study?

I'm not sure about his qualifications pertaining to philosophy. But I do know he's qualified to speak on matters of biology.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If your perception tells you I have issues with the theory of evolution, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I have never said nor concluded that evolution isn't a valid theory, again you are barking up the wrong tree.

Must be how you're presenting yourself so my perception of you is what made me comment there......but point taken...


oh, I almost forgot.......do you think Evolution is a valid theory?

 

[Storm]

Actually...Isn't he a Dr. of Philosiphy holding a PhD in that field of study?

According to Wiki. I never knew that.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I will not claim probability of facts as facts, this I will leave for subjective people to do.

You just get worse. Even an educated opinion is an opinion. A theory is just an opinion. Sometimes, even educated people are too close to what they are seeing and have to step away to see things more clearly and gain a different perception before they can go forward. Get over it.

Hahahaha. From years experience of dealing with people like you, I can speak your language.

Translation: What you have presented, ContentiusMaximus, has debunked my claims. So, I'm going to pretend like it didn't happen and ignore the evidence that totally shreds apart my BS.

Yeah, just as I suspected. You have nothing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not sure about his qualifications pertaining to philosophy. But I do know he's qualified to speak on matters of biology.

No problem. I was looking at his bio at ye old great Wikipedia as well as his site and a few others and they express him receiving a PhD. in Philosophy from Oxford University but you're correct on the other qualifications....

 

[footprints]

Your "perception" is that I buy into conspiracy theories.....I don't really care for them. I was merely pointing out that you lack the ability to refute the theory.

My perception didn't buy that at all. I gave a whole host of possibilities which it could have fallen into. Which one is correct, I will not know till you tell me. That you raised it, does however tell me it is part of your association patterns, else you would not have written it down. The brain can't possibly know what it doesn't know.

You were merely pointing out, that according to your perception, I lack the ability to refute the theory.

And who do you think I am going refute the theory to, you? If I were inclined to refute the theory, I would do it in a place where it would have the most benefit, and not in some out of the way place on the internet.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No problem. I was looking at his bio at ye old great Wikipedia as well as his site and a few others and they express him receiving a PhD. in Philosophy from Oxford University but you're correct on the other qualifications....

Well then I stand corrected. Thank you .

 

[Tristesse]

This would be dependant on what you would class as a different cause?

My cause is truth, does that align with your cause? Personally I don't care whether the cause for evolution or the cause for creation is the greater cause, nor do I really care if both the cause for evolution and the cause for creationism coexist or even if they one in the same. Truth is all I am looking for.

I do not have any evidence other than that available to all of humanity. Some evidence comes from academia, some from religions, some from ancient cultures. As long as the evidence is true and supportable, I do not care where it comes from.

Well maybe thats the problem, you should care where your information comes from. There is a lot of bad information out there. And if you're willing to take any information humanity offers, chances are you're going to get a lot of bad information or just false information. It's important to critically examine any information you may get, especially claims of the supernatural.

 

[footprints]

So is it safe to say that those of you who are crying foul don't have any evidence to refute the theory...?

I would say that is one way of looking at it, one perception of many possibilities. Is that the only rational and logical reason your brain can come up with, a negative perception at that?

 

[footprints]

Well maybe thats the problem, you should care where your information comes from. There is a lot of bad information out there. And if you're willing to take any information humanity offers, chances are you're going to get a lot of bad information or just false information. It's important to critically examine any information you may get, especially claims of the supernatural.

Yes Tristesse there is a lot of bad information out there, that is the reason why I only accept some evidence from academia, some from religions and some from ancient cultures.

Some doesn't mean just any and it doesn't mean all. I will think you find the true and supportable clause in my previous address gives something away.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I would say that is one way of looking at it, one perception of many possibilities. Is that the only rational and logical reason your brain can come up with, a negative perception at that?

It's not negative....at least my question isn't. There are some people who just appear to be really critical of the ToE and I find that most know very little of the theory....like someone one just said...(flies turning into dogs). This shows a complete misunderstanding of the theory.


Even you appear to be critical of the theory and yet you aknowledge some areas where evolution could be indicated....and even in you critical view of the theory you freely admit you have no evidence to the contrary......So where does that leave us...? It still leaves me in acknowledgment, understanding and acceptance of the ToE and you on the fence......

 

[footprints]

I would say you're correct but you're not. If you were then such practices such as blood sacrifice or even astrology wouldn't have existed...but we know they did.

Personally I think you want to start your knowledge of ancient cultures from the middle age.

If you knew anything pertaining to ancient cultures, you would know that sacrifices didn't start to occur till after the hunter and gatherer stage. It was in the hunter and gatherer stage where the base roots of many modern day religions were founded.

You would also know that it was a priviledge for a person to be choosen to be sacrificed, people would be lining up for it, else they were prisoners captured in wars against neighbouring communities. You would be surprised at what we still do to prisoners of war today. Most ancient cultures didn't have sacrifices. Some ancient cultures used astrology to govern the time and seasons, others used evidence from nature, changing trees, when animals moved et al.

 

[footprints]

In our day and time it seemed as though we did. Parents use to tell their kids the Stork brought mommy the baby. I work for a local school system and just today at our middle school a kid was taunting and teasing another exclaiming "You have Aids".....The kid didn't know what that was. When he ask what that was anither student said "It's a...STD...duhhhh!!"....Then another student ask "What's an STD?"

Even the Australian Aboriginal living in remote areas without any education at all know where children come from and how babies are created. Because they are not as inhibited as us western counterparts as it pertains to sex, all children know the facts of life also. The same applies to most cultures on earth, pretty much it is only western societies which make sex a taboo subject.

Although I believe you meant this to be funny, I a sorry I cannot take it in the funny context. I have spent too much of my time trying to fix problems generated by simple scenarios like this.

A child will only ever be as good as the teachers around them. Teach a child dumb answers and that is all they will know at the time, if they are never taught anything different, this dumb answer will be all they ever know.

It really isn't children who need educating it is the adults around them.

 

[footprints]

IPointless......

Pointless to you, but I seek the truth not your perception, so it is with point to me.

It's not relevant to this thread but you may be off on this one. But you may have to define by what you mean by "later in history" because people and groups appeared to have been labeled heretics in the first century and maybe even earlier than that.

When I say ancient cultures Penguin, I am talking 40,000 + years ago, not where ancient history jumps in from. Root cultures.