Question for people that believe in evolution

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Personally I'd start as far back as Egypt but that's just me.

 

[Tristesse]

This thread has gotten way off topic from it's original intent, evolution.

 

[footprints]

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?

I think you will find most people have high standards for a lot of things.

Well I would say that is matter of perception whether you had any higher standards than anybody else on any understanding.

There is nothing the matter with that, providing you give the same credit to everybody who has the same or an equal standard to you, and by your analogy, greater credit to anybody with a higher standard to you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Well I don't where I was getting the perception you didn't think Evolution was a valid theory considering you acknowledge man's existence on the planet 40,000 years ago. The current skeletal record confirms the theory. We even go back even further than that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This thread has gotten way off topic from it's original intent, evolution.

Sorry...I think we're back on track now...

 

[footprints]

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

That doesn't stop you from sounding and acting like one. :sorry1:

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

Yes I am

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.

Do you mean like everybody who follows a particular academic field in blind faith that it is right? Tell me who you bow to Penguin and I will tell you who you are a sheep to.

Do you mean like the same repeated dogma which non-believers et al continually spew out. From my position in life I see it from both sides. From the non-believer side they only see it from the believer side, and from the believer side they only see it from the non-believer side.

 

[Sententia]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Quite a bit really.

Vestigial organs in various species. There are birds that could once fly but can now no longer yet still they clean their wings because its an evolutionary trait left over from when they could fly.

Diatoms we have a complete record of watching them change.

Too plentiful to list me thinks at this late hour. Have you read Dawkin's new book which is a tome basically stating why evolution is accepted as essentially fact.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That doesn't stop you from sounding and acting like one. :sorry1:

Your perception of me is duly noted...

Do you mean like everybody who follows a particular academic field in blind faith that it is right? Tell me who you bow to Penguin and I will tell you who you are a sheep to.

Am I now?...Look if the falsifiable evidence establishes my acceptance for the ToE....then so be it...BUT...I have no problem shifting my view if new evidence is brought forward. As long as people such as Ray Comfort (seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c) keep spouting nonsense then they'll continue to be sheep.

Additionally you'll notice I posted a video from a Biologist (Ken Miller). He's a theist. So No....I don't mean everybody that follows a particular academic field nor religious background. If I was so anti-theist I would have tried to dig deep to only present an atheist biologist. That's dishonest. I wouldn't even know where to begin with junk like that. I don't care if he/she is a theist or an atheist. I care about the evidence and if it is presented correctly and reviewed by colleagues in the field of study.

Do you mean like the same repeated dogma which non-believers et al continually spew out.

We're not spewing "dogma"...only evidence. You know....that's what this whole debate is about right? I'm not coming to you with a set of beliefs. If you think I am then your issue is not with me rather it should be with the theist and atheist biologist presenting the evidence. See that's why when people such as yourself say (we believe) or (spew dogma) you have no idea what you're talking about. You just happen to be debating an atheist who is quoting or presenting evidence from a theist scientist...

From my position in life I see it from both sides.

As do I.

From the non-believer side they only see it from the believer side, and from the believer side they only see it from the non-believer side.

Again....I see it from both sides....I just happen to agree with the side that has the evidence......

 

[footprints]

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?

I already knew you were letting your past experience influence your present judgment. It is a quirk of the human brain. To put it simply, I would imitate a previously stored association pattern which your brain would relate to. The simple fact that I give creationism probability, is enough for most people to relate and associate me to a creationist. Because they relate and associate me to a creationist, I therefore have to deny evolution. All very rational and logical, but in an irrational and illogical sense, for they are talking to me, and not their past experience. It gets a little more compounded by the fact that give more probability to some points in the theory of evolution than I do to other points, and the fact that I speak of evolution in general, rather than the theory of evolution. Half the people I have talked to believe it is only biology who is interested in evolution, which is a shame for scientific departments such as palaeontology et al. But that is human nature for you.

I personally believe evolution is a very valid theory, too much suggested evidence to deny it. Albeit, as far as the Theory of Evolution goes, I give a higher probability on some points than I do to other points.

 

[footprints]

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.

Clever you. LOL.

 

[footprints]

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.

Of course it wouldn't be negative from your perspective, from you perspective it could only be positive. If you seen it as negative you wouldn't hold the perception that you do.

Flies turning into dogs, do you mean like dinosaurs turning into birds? I would be very careful how you answer this, if you do not already have the full knowledge as it pertains to evolution. Albeit flies into dogs is a bit far fetched, I would have to give that a very low probability factor.

It is due to people being critical which will push science to higher levels. Without this criticism, science would still get there anyhow, it just motivates science to go faster. It is actually quite funny how it works, theism pushes science to higher levels, science pushes theism to higher levels, so it can get back to the beginning and start all over again.

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......

I have already stated in another post which you may not have read yet, where the theory of evolution is concerned, I give a higher probability to some points than I do to others. The points where I would give a lower probability factor to, I will replace with points from other fields of evolution study, to which I give a higher probability.

I don't believe I admitted to having no contrary or additional evidence. I will however say, I would have no evidence that a hard lined supporter of the theory of evolution would accept. In order for a hard lined supporter of the theory of evolution to see my points, they would have to go against their own belief pattern. A bit like a supporter of evolution trying to convince a hard lined creationist, that evolution happened and is still happening. The same brain patterns would need to be combated and even though this is possible to do, it cannot be done without a great deal of disrespect in it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh...momma..I watched this and this stuff was so funny...... It's on topic and hits on a lot of what we have been discussing here.

Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs&feature=related

:biglaugh:

 

[Kerr]

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.

This we agree on.

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.

As tragic as it is, this is how the world has always been. People lie. They manipulate. And sometimes they, we, think we have experienced things we haven´t. One example of this is how obsessed we where with burning witches.

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.

Are you saying anyone should be given funding for simply stating that they have a hypothesis they want to look at?

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.

Yep.

 

[footprints]

Personally I'd start as far back as Egypt but that's just me.

Egypt is as good a place to start as any, providing of course you know you are not at or near the beginning. Albeit people would have existed in and/or around where Egypt now sits, well before Egypt was called Egypt, we just don't have much evidence of them, at this point in time it has not been found or destroyed over time.

Being in Australia I am lucky in this respect, the Australian Aboriginal goes back 40,000 + years. Basically untouched in their hunter and gatherer state, well before 200 odd years ago when their culture was interfered with and changed forever. And although most of the early knowlege written about them was based on the perception of the new settlers, enough knowledge was left by the aboriginal people themselves and in drawings from early botanist, Darwin included, to put a good picture together from the Australian Aboriginal perspective.

 

[footprints]

Well I don't where I was getting the perception you didn't think Evolution was a valid theory considering you acknowledge man's existence on the planet 40,000 years ago. The current skeletal record confirms the theory. We even go back even further than that.

I know where you were getting your perception from Penguin, it is called past experience. Though as long as you know it is and was perception, and nothing to do with reality. Perceptions can look so real to us, it is amazing.

Australian records only go back about 100,000 years, albeit the latest finds have yet to be confirmed and why I only say 40,000+ years.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Flies turning into dogs, do you mean like dinosaurs turning into birds? I would be very careful how you answer this, if you do not already have the full knowledge as it pertains to evolution.

Well..I certainly don't believe flies turning into dogs. I was simply pointing out that these are some of the stupid questions or comments we hear.

It is due to people being critical which will push science to higher levels. Without this criticism, science would still get there anyhow, it just motivates science to go faster. It is actually quite funny how it works, theism pushes science to higher levels, science pushes theism to higher levels, so it can get back to the beginning and start all over again.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but from what I can tell science does not feed off of religion. In science religion really isn't a factor because there are normally lots of scientist with varying religious backgrounds. In the case of biology this holds true.

I don't believe I admitted to having no contrary or additional evidence. I will however say, I would have no evidence that a hard lined supporter of the theory of evolution would accept.

I'm game. What do you have?
Is the evidence testable?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I know where you were getting your perception from Penguin, it is called past experience. Though as long as you know it is and was perception, and nothing to do with reality. Perceptions can look so real to us, it is amazing.

What do you mean by reality. See, in this case, philosophy has nothing to do with it. There is evidence for evolution. Even if I "perceived" it to be evidence I don't get the final say so. My findings would be viewed by others.

Australian records only go back about 100,000 years, albeit the latest finds have yet to be confirmed and why I only say 40,000+ years.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
"The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines. The genus Homo had diverged from the Australopithecines by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa. Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees - the only other living hominins - about 5–7 million years ago. Several species of Homo evolved and are now extinct. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis, which argues that H. sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50-100,000 years ago, replacing populations of H. erectus in Asia and H. neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that H. sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of H. erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago."

So your 100,000 year estimate may only account for the more recent homosapiens it may not be taking into account earlier man.

 

[footprints]

Your perception of me is duly noted...

Am I now?...Look if the falsifiable evidence establishes my acceptance for the ToE....then so be it...BUT...I have no problem shifting my view if new evidence is brought forward. As long as people such as Ray Comfort (seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c) keep spouting nonsense then they'll continue to be sheep.

Keep calling and labelling people sheep and I will keep showing you, you are a sheep. Just by labelling somebody a sheep, it isn't your original concept, it has been around for years, so you are following the lead of some other person, which makes you a sheep to their belief and their original phrase. You prove their point that some people are sheep. It is a derogative and negative term and isn't needed in decent converstation. Just because people belong to a religion doesn't mean they do not have intelligence and have the ability to think for themselves.

What is nonsense to you isn't nonsense to them. If you do not like what the are saying, don't listen to them, turn it off, that is what I do. Everybody has a right to voice their opinion and their belief, this isn't something that is just reserved for academia.

Additionally you'll notice I posted a video from a Biologist (Ken Miller). He's a theist. So No....I don't mean everybody that follows a particular academic field nor religious background. If I was so anti-theist I would have tried to dig deep to only present an atheist biologist. That's dishonest. I wouldn't even know where to begin with junk like that. I don't care if he/she is a theist or an atheist. I care about the evidence and if it is presented correctly and reviewed by colleagues in the field of study.

I have a little knowledge of Miller. All evidence irrespective of who delivers it or where it comes from should be taken on its merits.

We're not spewing "dogma"...only evidence. You know....that's what this whole debate is about right? I'm not coming to you with a set of beliefs. If you think I am then your issue is not with me rather it should be with the theist and atheist biologist presenting the evidence. See that's why when people such as yourself say (we believe) or (spew dogma) you have no idea what you're talking about. You just happen to be debating an atheist who is quoting or presenting evidence from a theist scientist...

Everybody has a set of beliefs, it is inbuilt with human perception.

What you see as intelligence, others will see as spewing dogma. From your perspective you see what you say as intelligence and the other side spewing dogma. It is a catch 22, but that is human nature for you.

As do I.

Yes you do see both sides, your side is positive and any other side is negative. LOL. What I meant was you have to see the other side from the other persons perception. The cliche' is, you do not really know another person till you have walked a mile in their shoes, albeit through perception we often think we do.

Again....I see it from both sides....I just happen to agree with the side that has the evidence......

All sides have evidence, some of this evidence is supportable, some of the evidence isn't.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Keep calling and labelling people sheep and I will keep showing you, you are a sheep. Just by labelling somebody a sheep, it isn't your original concept, it has been around for years, so you are following the lead of some other person, which makes you a sheep to their belief and their original phrase. You prove their point that some people are sheep. It is a derogative and negative term and isn't needed in decent converstation. Just because people belong to a religion doesn't mean they do not have intelligence and have the ability to think for themselves.

What is nonsense to you isn't nonsense to them. If you do not like what the are saying, don't listen to them, turn it off, that is what I do. Everybody has a right to voice their opinion and their belief, this isn't something that is just reserved for academia.

Yep......and their sheep....IMO...:sarcastic

Don't tell me I have a right to my own opinion and then chastise me because I expressed my opinion.

I have a little knowledge of Miller. All evidence irrespective of who delivers it or where it comes from should be taken on its merits.

I could agree with this. In his case being a biologist and a theist I'm all ears and the data he presents has been confirmed by other biologist because it has been tested and verified.

What you see as intelligence, others will see as spewing dogma. From your perspective you see what you say as intelligence and the other side spewing dogma. It is a catch 22, but that is human nature for you.

No....every time someone opens a religious book to prove their point or quote scripture to me I present them with the evidence that refutes their claim. This happened in another thread in relation to the great deluge. People who take their book literally believe it actually happened but NO biologist, Geologist or Anthropologist has ever confirmed such an event such as that taking place on our planet...EVER. So there is NO catch 22 especially not in the case of Evolution.

Yes you do see both sides, your side is positive and any other side is negative. LOL. What I meant was you have to see the other side from the other persons perception. The cliche' is, you do not really know another person till you have walked a mile in their shoes, albeit through perception we often think we do.

Who's to say I've never walked in their shoes before? The problem here is you may not know my experiences. It is all moot since this debate is not about religious background, or upbringing. It's about Evolution and one has nothing to do with the other except when pitted against each other. In that situation we require evidence and not fanciful claims.

All sides have evidence, some of this evidence is supportable, some of the evidence isn't.

Since I except the ToE what evidence is available from those who believe in creationism?

Can you provide any "evidence"?

 

[Alceste]

Oh...momma..I watched this and this stuff was so funny...... It's on topic and hits on a lot of what we have been discussing here.

Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs&feature=related

:biglaugh:

oooooh - that's so painful. :help: