quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN?

Well, no matter what your belief system, this is a tricky question. Scientists would say the Big Bang, to which religion would respond, "Well, what caused the big bang?" Religion would say God started it all, to which skeptics would say, "Well, where did God come from?"

As difficult as it is, I think you have to accept the notion that something has always existed and wasn't created by anything. Whether you want to believe that "something" is a sentient being, or a combination of matter and energy is the real debate.

Well, I think yr summary has neatly tied a knot in this thread there eric!

Where do we go from here ha ha...

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
Well, I think yr summary has neatly tied a knot in this thread there eric!

I winz teh internets!!!

People, we have a winner.!

Would all other gods, deities, higher level angels et al please move to the exit......nothing to see here....

quote:

It's just something I've noticed here & there and I just figured I'd finally ask why you, seemingly, need to do it, is all.

It's a rhetorical question and you don't expect anything close to an answer. What would an answer look like, anyway?

"I need to respond because... I feel like it"?

Why did you need to make this thread? Rather, what compelled you to do it? Neither question matters. We should be encouraging debate, not asking people why they need to respond as if they don't.

quote:

Well, it's as I said, this wasn't a religious debate, at least, it wasn't for me.

But it flip flops inevitably. Skepticism is a beautiful thing, and more people should practice it. My main concern is skepticism for all the wrong reasons. When you have a wealth of ideas thrown at you, it's a good thing to question it (the same inevitably goes for religion). I am baffled by a certain kind of skepticism, though, the kind in which one hears something that conflicts with their ideologies, and instead of actually studying the facts and yearning for an authentic answer to their questions (i.e. the search for knowledge), the new ideas become not subject to close scrutiny in many circles, but outright abandoned and unstudied. That's when the straw men come flying in all their spurious fury and bombarding the scientists, the good ones of which try to communicate an idea for which they're certain of their evidence.

quote:

I linked a Creationist site because I was forced to pick a side, but my MAIN concern is HOW we evolved.

I think that's a fantastic question. Evolution is not a difficult thing to study. The "how" question has been answered in any sensible biology textbook. Scientists have figured out the "how" of it all; they just don't know the mechanism that controls evolution (some posit God; I think it's a much simpler mechanism). What's neat about science is that it supplies us with an appreciation for the humble side of everything. If a scientist doesn't know an answer, it's in their job description to say so; not only that, but to be skeptical even about their own ideas.

You're never forced to pick a side. If somebody is pressuring you into choosing a side, tell them you'd rather not: you're more interested in asking questions and figuring out the answers. I don't much like the false dichotomy between the sides. It ignores that there are actual people out there who don't understand evolution and want to know more about it, and I think it's not been especially encouraged in our schools like it should.

quote:

"The basic idea is that it IS pretty amazing that we, and pretty much, only we have managed to evolve this kind of difference. You can come closer to seeing a natural progression towards flight, scales, fur, etc., but there is a slight disconnect when it comes to the intelligence we have, where we've evolved something that nobody, even our closest animal relatives have, an ability that has allowed us to create complex tools and fire, to be so self aware, and to actually be able to rationally debate evolution.

We're also embedded with the inclination toward injecting our species with a sense of purpose: religion is anthropologically explainable. That our consciousness allows us faculties that other animals lack says nothing about our purpose. Why is it so difficult to understand that over billions of years, a range of intelligences has surfaced on this planet? We've got so many species with different levels of awareness. Other species have feelings of the sort that neuroscientists have been studying for a long while. Science isn't easy stuff, but it's been revealing some pretty amazing and wondrous things.

Besides, our intelligence and ability to make sense of the world says very little against the genetic evidence for evolution. There's always the debate about the "missing link" in evolution. First, when we talk about that, we're talking about the missing link for humans. The truth is that there will always be a missing link, even if we find, given specimens 1 and 2, specimen 1.5: People will ask for specimens 1.25 and 1.75 in its stead. Second, we may never construct a full, I suppose, "human compendium," wherein all of our ancestors will be mapped on some complex biology diagram. We limit our thinking, in many cases, only to humankind. What many questioners should ask, instead, is what, if anything, makes our consciousness entirely unique. That kind of knowledge might or might not be found with neurochemistry.

quote:

This is something that has never, fully, been explained to me.

I can't claim to be a scientist: I'm still working on my degree in college. I only study science as an amateur. If you want something on this matter explained to you, don't consult a web forum, unless it is inhabited by a wealth of scientists who can present you with some facts reproduced in much more eloquent prose than most could ever muster. Go to texts for answers, or simply to ask more questions.

quote:

There have been little mentions of a gene that ONLY we have developed upon, but when I asked how it is WE, as a species, are the only ones to put stress upon this area, all I get is, "We evolved it."

That's right, "we evolved it." It's not a full answer, but then, would you like them to produce some gene diagrams and specific chemical compositions for your yearning eyes? I like that you're curious, but I'm concerned that you're not only curious, though, that there might be something else at work in your head. But I might be wrong.

quote:

Isn't that simple little statement the same as saying "God did it."

No, the evolution idea is true and God is probably not.

quote:

There is no explanation in either one. Is it that my questions are still unknown to scientists, or do they not really care about this part of the discussion?

Stop asking the layman for scientific questions and ask scientists themselves. Ask a biology professor at the college level, perhaps, or a physicist, or an astrophysicist, or a neurobiologist, or an anthropologist. They are much more equipped to offer you what you're looking for than, probably, any message board on the internet (unless it's a message board fielded by scientists).

You haven't thought more about this than scientists, remember. This has been studied since Darwin (and findings that have elevated it from a theory make the label of "Darwinism" a misnomer, since Darwin's findings were preliminary, worthy of much further scrutiny). There are also explanations you probably never thought of. Scientists know more than me or probably anybody here fielding your questions. They're the ones who have done experiments and found tangible evidence. Scientists care about every bit of the discussion, and have probably answered questions you or I have yet to ask.

quote:

But why? I've put up with racism and I don't hate black & whites for it. (I'm pretty sure racism has done alot more damage than religion. Especially in recent times. Why aren't you more pissed about that?)

I'm very angry about racism because racism isn't a biological difference, it's a cultural one. Which is religion: cultural or biological? Maybe it's both. Granted, in my response, I lost my head and got a little heated. I'm only human. But I'm angry with people for being racist for the much different but related reason that people don't care enough about scientific findings. It's related because biology reveals racism is really illusory, created by culture when somebody has a different level of melanin in their skin: it's related because it's scientific, too. I don't like that people have stooped themselves in ignorance of particular findings because they'd rather preserve the status quo in their religious (much of the time) thinking. Sometimes it's skeptical thinking. The former is unjust, the latter is fantastic and we should encourage it.

quote:

Not one Christian, here, has outright attacked the ideals of any person in this forum (at least, not without apologizing, afterwards), but the atheists can't seem to get enough of it.

Religious people have attacked science and even created shows in which they throw straw men at the audience to convince them that religion is the true way and that science is false. Why, they ask? Because, science is baloney. They caricature science as balderdash: look at cartoon representations of the "mad scientist" or the "dorky science geek". Those have come from a culture devoted to dismissing science as something not worth our attention. I don't get that. I hold firmly two things: 1.) I shouldn't have gotten heated, but I'm only human; 2.) scientists are still angry for the very reasons I've stated, and they should be. We're an evolving culture. We are evolving rapidly, and I'm convinced that science done to a moral level is a great thing.

quote:

Whether we talk from personal experiences or the Bible (in the religion thread), every single time, we're wrong. You're right.

You're right, it is like that a lot of the time, and it sucks. It should be this: we're right, you're probably wrong. That's not an attack; it's based on the world at large due to new things we know. Why, for instance, is the Christian god the right god? Why not Zeus or Apollo or the Dreaming beings of the Australian Aborigines? Why not Allah or Shiva or Buddha? These are questions we should be asking.

quote:

Have you ever convinced anyone who really believes in a God you're right?

I've certainly convinced a few that they might be wrong. Two of my friends have turned atheists after some long and interesting discussions. It wasn't because of me that they turned atheists; that's not my point. My point is that after discussion, they looked into it, and they didn't (at first) like what they saw. I've convinced people to look into scientific findings and journals produced on the matter. Whatever happened afterward was purely up to them. I'll wait until my education is complete before I begin practicing actual science. Until then, consult the professionals; they know more than most people.

quote:

What's the point besides anger & frustration towards those who aren't even here?

You're right. I shouldn't have gotten heated. Anger accomplishes very little, I find, and I shouldn't resort to it nearly as much. But it's a double-edged sword. We should be having a level-headed discussion on both ends of the spectrum. That scientists are finally getting frustrated because of their sometimes social ostracism doesn't surprise me. Nobel laureates are sometimes forgotten. Creationists and other religious people alike get heated, too. When a scientist gets angry, we should begin to understand that something might be wrong. We should be practicing skepticism more than anything.

dB, yours is one of the most thoughtful posts on the subject I've read. I especially like your characterization of scientists as people whose values extend to skepticism even of their own belief systems.

One small quibble, Buddhism is non-theistic, and in it's purest, philosophic incarnation, is perfectly consistent with science and evolution.

Otherwise, bravo and keep it up.

quote:

Originally posted by drbanality:
I like that you're curious, but I'm concerned that you're not only curious, though, that there might be something else at work in your head. But I might be wrong.

No, you're right. This ENTIRE discussion was brought up in the religious thread because I am curious as to how much understanding of it people really have & I would like to know more. This is the first time I've ever had this discussion & people corrected me for saying "monkeys" or "apes". I learned a tad about it in school (I went before it was such a controversy to teach it) & I never fully understood it. I do have a better understanding of it, now.

quote:

Stop asking the layman for scientific questions and ask scientists themselves. Ask a biology professor at the college level, perhaps, or a physicist, or an astrophysicist, or a neurobiologist, or an anthropologist. They are much more equipped to offer you what you're looking for than, probably, any message board on the internet (unless it's a message board fielded by scientists).

The reason I keep asking the "layman" is because the "laymans" kept bringing it up! This subject was clogging up 2 other threads & it was no longer about religion or aliens. (In fact, it seemed to be following me. But maybe I'm just paranoid.)

quote:

Originally posted by Kendocubano:
dB, yours is one of the most thoughtful posts on the subject I've read.

I quite agree. Thank you, drbanality.

P.S.
I responded to the rest of your post in the 'Friendly Talk on Religion' thread. It just seemed like the right place for it.

A response to this quote over in the Election 2008 thread. I do think someone has written stuff about this before, but I just thought I’d have another shot at explaining it. I know we buried this topic ages ago, but there's people new to the forums who probably don't know this exists. I urge you to read the whole thread. As for my bit coming up it is long but I think at least IndieFolkExperimentalLover should read it. Here goes:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we weren't debating intelligent design. My position on that is it's a theory; same with evolution ...

Please do not use the "it's just a theory" argument. It shows that you do not know what a theory is in science. I know you to be smarter than that. You’ve been hanging around Metacritic long enough for me to see that you are not a foolish person and have the ability to think for yourself.

In science theory is a term for a very powerful idea, and ultimately a truth. Gravity is "just a theory"; it's called the "Theory of Gravity". Would you like to argue against gravity? Until we find the Higgs boson or dark matter, the theory of evolution has more concrete supporting evidence than the theory of gravity would you believe? No? Well it’s true. Strange, but you wouldn’t say gravity doesn’t exist, would you?

Allow me to explain what a theory is in science, and also why evolution is considered science and ID is neither science nor a scientific theory.

What a theory is, in science, is a collection of known facts explained by one concept. There are hundreds of thousands of known facts that evolution explains and is supported by. If just one of these facts were proved wrong, evolution would be false, but not one is. The ID group have yet to provide one fact supporting their idea. Not theory, their idea. Everything they come up with makes no predictions, cannot be tested, cannot be proved, has no conclusions and therefore cannot be called science or a theory. As that is what science is; science is predicting, testing, observing and concluding. And, yes we can predict, observe, test and conclude about evolution. The adaptation of germs to become resistant to drugs is just one of thousands of example of predictable, testable and observable evolution that we can make conclusions about.

ID is philosophy at best. It should be taught in a philosophy class, if at all. All ID does is try to find a hole in evolution and exploit it. But every time that they find a hole to exploit a scientists fill in the hole. The ID group lost the battle to teach their unproven non-science in science classes as every single aspect of what they were saying was proven wrong by scientists. Proved, beyond doubt.

So, please, don’t say it is ‘Just a Theory’. A theory is actually more powerful that a fact, I guess it’s just a bad choice of word. If I were to rename theories I’d call them ‘super-facts’ or ‘lots-of-facts-put-together-in-one-easy-idea-that-explains-all-of-the facts-and-is-pretty-much-as-true-as-we-can-confirm-anything-to-be-in-the-universe’ but that’d be a mouthful. Though, no-one would then call ID ‘LOFPTIOEITEAOTFAIPMATAWCCATBITU’, as it is not.

Please go to this video here it is by a post-doctoral researcher, and he’s done quite a few other videos too. This is the first of a three part series. All his videos show why evolution is fact and I.D. is not. Video two of this series of three is my favourite. It also has the best music. Part one is sound tracked with American Idiot, which I think is both unsuitable music for such a video and also a bad song.

Feel free to ask someone who is well educated on the subject. Read books on the subject. Be prepared to not understand certain things, but ask the right people the right questions. I’m sure that they would point you towards your goal of understanding. Because, the point behind science it to never stop questioning. Otherwise how will you get the answers and learn new things?

From the "2008 Presidential Election" thread:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
so did humans evolve from apes? I don't think that has ever been observed.

I'm not sure any evolutionists believe humans evolved from apes. Where did you get this idea?

oh and if we didn't come from apes, what did we evolve from?

It is not an accepted idea in science that humans evolved from apes. The common thought anymore is that humans evolved closely to chimpanzees, not apes as you are suggesting. Our closer ancestors are neanderthals, homo erectus, and before that the genus Australopithecus.

You're showing that you know very little on the subject, and probably have nothing to add to the discussion. Using the human eye as an example is ridiculous. I could just as easily say "I can't see God, so that means he doesn't exist." Neither one is backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Besides, evolution doesn't try to explain the creation of the universe, only the way it operates.

Think about it for a day or something, man.

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

quote:

Originally posted by Super'Shed:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
Before we switch back to politics, I just want to bring about the argument of the human eye. How could something so complex evolve? Sorry if this was already answered earlier.

I know jack all about evolution, but have you ever researched or vaguely read anything about it at all?

you didn't answer my question.

Well as I said, I know jack all about evolution, but from what I do know, I would of thought that even a basic understanding the word “evolution” itself would have been the answer to your question.

My understanding is that it’s a slow process of change that occurs in biological organisms through generations of reproduction. When an organism reproduces it passes on genes to it’s offspring that produce inherited traits. Natural selection influences how or what a species evolves into because the organisms that have the most useful traits to survive and continue reproducing in their particular environment become more common.

Allow me to clarify one thing.

Ape is actually used to describe all non-human species of Hominoidea, including chimpanzees.

I lied, I am interested in this thread.

The "how could the eye evolve?" argument is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You (meaning those who use this as an argument against evolution) do not understand how the eye could have evolved, so therefore you conclude that the eye could not have evolved. But biologists know quite well how it happened, and there are numerous examples in nature of what we could call the beginnings of the eye.

Since the big bang was mentioned earlier, I'll cover that: "big bang theory" is only generally accepted because it is the explanation right now that seems to be consistent with all known phenomena. There is quite a lot of dispute in the physics community about whether it has validity. But since we cannot observe the beginning of the universe it is not of the same class as evolution, which has been observed.

Again, I am not a physicist or a biologist so I may be getting something wrong here.

Also, Ali G.

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

Before we switch back to politics, I just want to bring about the argument of the human eye. How could something so complex evolve? Sorry if this was already answered earlier.

I believe this will answer your questions. If doesn't, feel free to read Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker.

I'm not going to get to involved in this debate, though. There is no way I can prove to you anything if you're of the opinion that by doing so I somehow make your god inferior. Additionally, you don't really seem to have much of a grasp on the arguments you yourself are arguing.

quote:

Originally posted by St. Mike:
There is no way I can prove to you anything if you're of the opinion that by doing so I somehow make your god inferior.

I've never understood why creationists act as if evolution somehow contradicts the existence of God. It doesn't. You're really examining two different questions. Science more or less examines the "how" portion of how man came to be. It doesn't answer or even ask anything about "why". Why the phenomenon of evolution exists is irrelevant to science. Scientists have just observed that it occurs. Asking the "why" portion of the question isn't really the job of science, which I think is something the ID crowd doesn't get.

What it does do is refute the literal account of man's creation as it is written in the Bible.

There are two creation stories in Genesis which one are you referring to? :P

quote:

Originally posted by Liberalkid:
There are two creation stories in Genesis which one are you referring to? :P

I almost mentioned that...It's really amusing considering it's a glaring mistake within the first few pages of a supposedly infallable book.

I've heard before that a number of biblical scholars don't really consider the first 11 chapters to be any kind of historical account, but that the Bible really kicks off in chapter 12 with Abram. The first 11 chapters are basically pre-historical stories that had been passed down. That could also explain why many of those stories bear a striking resemblance to other ancient texts, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

On a side note, I'm glad we started talking about more interesting stuff again.

quote:

Originally posted by St. Mike:
I believe this will answer your questions. If doesn't, feel free to read Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker.

Perhaps I will check out your book. Because I'm also interested in the answer to the question of how evolutionists explain things such as the eye, and the article you linked to seems to give Darwin's theory, which it quickly shoots down as implausible. It then spends the rest of it's time discussing the nonexistance of a creator because the eye might have a design flaw. I mean no offense. the article was respectfully written, and was insightful in some ways, I just don't see how it answers the question.

Also, could someone please explain what is being called "the two creation stories in Genesis"? Thanks.