Survey : human origins

[bankside]

Before you reply to me, please look at all I have said. I have not said God created the earth. I do not know if it was God. It might have been Brahma, Cronus, Gaia, El,Atum, or a turtle pulling up land that i suggest as a higher power.

Yes, this works for the turtle theory too. I don't think it is as strong a theory as evolution, given the fact that we have to explain.

Sorry but I can't totally believe in the evolution theory. I really do believe in in the divine, of intelligent design somewhere too. I've seen too much perfection and beauty in this world for it to be just an accident. I believe miracles happen every day.

This is where I shall make my usual plea to remember the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

Evolution is a theory that explains the development of life and the way it changes over millions of years. It doesn't say where life came from.

We have two theories for that too: creation and abiogenesis.

In creationist theories, we have to be convinced that god or brama or a really large turtle pulled life out of a hat. In abiogenesis, we have to be convinced that random molecules bumping into each other eventually mashed together into a protein inside a bubble of oil that could make copies of itself.

 

[gaystorm]

You realize calling it a theoty means you are arguing the same thing I am. That evolution is not fact.

 

[oakpope]

You realize calling it a theoty means you are arguing the same thing I am. That evolution is not fact.

You should investigate the meaning of "theory" in the scientific world. A scientific theory is the most sure thing for a scientist. Facts are the least important and meaningful. Why ? Because a fact doesn't explain anything. A theory explains something very accurately and no observations have contradict it, and the theory can predict effect of causes.

Religion and Science don't answer the same questions. The latter answers the How, the former answers the Why. Science has no answer as to What is the conscience, Religion has. Religion has no answer as to How Earth turns around the Sun (and doesn't care), Science has.

I'm a Catholic and have a scientific background. I don't feel the two are mutually exclusive at all. They coexist in my mind easily.

 

[bankside]

You realize calling it a theoty means you are arguing the same thing I am. That evolution is not fact.

Evolution is not a type of fruit punch either. That's not the point, and that's not what you're arguing.

You are arguing that evolutionary theory is inaccurate, and that some kind of creationist theory, of whatever variety, is accurate.

My contention is that you will be unconvincing. That would be because, evolution as worked out in the theory, is supported by the facts, and explains the facts more convincingly than any other kind of theory. It shows how different biological creatures relate to each other. It is predictable. It is demonstrable. It is, therefore, real.

 

[Telstra]

Sorry but I can't totally believe in the evolution theory. I really do believe in in the divine, of intelligent design somewhere too. I've seen too much perfection and beauty in this world for it to be just an accident. I believe miracles happen every day.

LOL, are you having fun with this comment or serious?

I believe god design human perfectly too

 

[oakpope]

As for Evolution, it's a theory, massively accepted by the scientific community. All the observations made are explained by it and no observation has been made that contradict it.

Intelligent design is a way some religious people have proposed to explain that Evolution is true, but that Evolution was willed by God.
I believe in God and I believe He wanted he Human race to exist. But we should remember that time doesn't matter for Him, He knows all what have been, are and will be, so the attempt to treat evolution or design as time passes has no meaning for Him, in my opinion.

Religious people shouldn't even care and certainly shouldn't feel threatened by evolution. Oh those that think that God directly created Adam and Eve and Earth 10 000 years ago should feel threatened, but only because they are morons.

 

[WillMc88]

No. I wont go google it because you all are such experts on the subject I want you to teach me. What kind of person says something IS a fact and will not show how they know it is a fact? Because it is not a fact?

Oy vey. You sound very young, and I don't mean to be condescending. Since I'm not an expert on evolution (but apparently I claimed to be, right?) I'll leave you this short video playlist that explains it better than I could.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL100500E4C9404405&feature=plcp

And if you don't want to watch videos on the subject, though I recommend you do as they're masterfully done, you can read the answers to your questions.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

 

[Telstra]

Unless they can tell what god is, there is nothing to debate about.

 

[DigitalFudge]

I have a few things I need to say.

1. If we evolved from apes, why have we stopped evolving?

Answer: Evolution is not a process that has to happen. Evolution happens because we need it to. How do humans need to further evolve? Do we need to grow thicker skin? No, we have coats. Do we have to develop sharper teeth? No we have knives.

Once upon a time when two groups of horses were in a field and the branches were too high that contained fruit for one type of horse they died off. Leaving the horse with the longer legs/neck able to eat, breed, and spread it's gene pool (Natural Selection).

Humans don't need to survive on those types of levels anymore. Humans can of course evolve in more subtle ways but that's not what I'm getting at here.



There will no longer be natural evolution for the Human Race on the gradual cope we are use to analyzing from the past (Unless there is some catalyst or planetary event). The only type of evolution we will see is gene therapy and genetic mutations coming out of a lab. Enhancing our reflexes, sight, changing eye color ect ect.

The way the media has explained evolution "We came from apes" does the theory no justice.


In a nut shell all evolution/survival of the fittest/adaptation tells us is that those with the tools to survive will survive and the rest will die off. We did not magically form from two strange looking apes creating a human.

"Origin of Life" =/= Evolution. All evolution does is show us how organisms have changed over time.


Edit: Oh and Darwins theories of Human origins have been support by fossil and genetic evidence in Africa.

Wasn't some female skull dating back even farther than previous predictions found like a decade ago? Didn't that make news?

Oh God let me google this shit.

 

[Lefty]

Oakie mi amigo...

Get your facts straight. They are incontrovertible realities such as fire is hot and ice is cold. plain simple,
black and white are simple facts as 'we' define them, neither being abstract or theory. .

Theory encompasses all the areas between fire and ice or black and white. Theories are merely hypothesis based on facts and projected to attempt to explain that which cannot be identified as
unassailable fact.

As far as evolution needing support statics, every time a sperm and an egg team up, it is an
evolutionary process. Since this is a fact, it lends strong credence to the concept of evolution for
the universe and all that which is within.

The God (choose your name preference) conjectures are sadly lacking in any concrete foundation and they
appear only to exist as an opiate for the masses.

BTW, Gaystorm, I am not desirous of creating a sandbox dust up butt, Gaia was/is a deification or
or personification of Mother Earth in ancient Greek religion, one of the Greek primordial deities. Gaia
was the great mother of all...but like the others you mentioned, a title created by mortals to explain
what to them was otherwise inexplicable.

 

[oakpope]

Oakie mi amigo...

Get your facts straight. They are incontrovertible realities such as fire is hot and ice is cold. plain simple,
black and white are simple facts as 'we' define them, neither being abstract or theory. .

|Theory encompasses all the ares between fire and ice or black and white. Theories are merely hypothesis
based on facts and projected to attempt to explain that which cannot be identified as unassailable fact.

Dear Lefty : do you discuss 1+1=2 ?
Because it's a naming convention. Scientific theory has NO link to 'theory' as in I guess that, used commonly in mundane daily talk. When a physicist talks about the beauty of a quark, I can assure you that he doesn't talk about his feeling towards the quark...

In the scientific world, a theory is the most stable, proven, irrefutable explanation of phenomena that can be made. You have no authority to contradict this, because it is this by definition ! If you want to change that, gather all scientists in a congress and ask them to change their definition. Good welcome is not guaranteed

As for existence of God, it is a belief, and no proof exists nor counterproof. That anyone chooses to believe there is no God is perfectly understandable and is a right. It's also a belief, by lack of proof. The only logical stance is agnosticism ie I don't know. I know that my believes are just that, believes and I will never try to 'prove' them, as it is impossible. It is, though, very real to me.

 

[oakpope]

By the way 'Fire is hot' has no meaning in a scientific point of view. Furthermore 'hot' is relative to a person. Someone can find 30° Celsius hot and someone can find that not so hot. What is scientific is : the temperature of this fire is 580° Celcius +/- 5° as has been measured by this instrument. 'fire is hot' is so far from being a 'incontrovertible realities'. There are some cold flames that don't burn fingers : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_flame .

 

[Lefty]

Oakie mon cherie...

These are the established definitions of the term theory that I ascribe to.
I am more than willing to consider other substantiated definitions. Until
then, this evolution of language is what I consider as fact....

Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
See theory defined for English-language learners »
See theory defined for kids »
Examples of THEORY

a widely accepted scientific theory
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
The immune surveillance theory of cancer holds that in a way we all do have cancer, that a healthy immune system fights off rogue cells as they appear. —Sallie Tisdale, Harper's, June 2007

 

[oakpope]

Sorry to repeat myself. The evolution theory is a scientific theory. In science, a theory has a certain meaning that is NOT the common meaning found on a dictionary. Ask any scientific about that if I fail to convince you. Once again, to give an example, scientists give name to property of particles, like 'up', 'down', 'strange', 'beauty' etc, that has nothing to do with the usual meaning of the word.

 

[Lefty]

By the way 'Fire is hot' has no meaning in a scientific point of view. Furthermore 'hot' is relative to a person. Someone can find 30° Celsius hot and someone can find that not so hot. What is scientific is : the temperature of this fire is 580° Celcius +/- 5° as has been measured by this instrument. 'fire is hot' is so far from being a 'incontrovertible realities'. There are some cold flames that don't burn fingers : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_flame .

Note, all fires have flames ...BYTT cool flames do not necessarily have fires. let us rein in the rhetoric and
cease this disputatious semantics battle. I think the plate is already full of the original matter thus these
sidebars becloud the issue.

As to your cimments defining theory as used by the scientific fields, please refresh you memory with items 1-4 of the definition I submitted., one which is recognised by layman and experts world wide.

 

[oakpope]

For the definitions you provided I think 3 and 5 should apply to the Evolution theory.
Entirely aggree with you, we have surely err too much far from the meaning of the thread
I apologize if I have sounded too rude or vehement, dear Lefty

 

[gaystorm]

I am so sorry, but that site says nothing of what I am asking for. I want to hear something besides how we are closely related to apes. It is interesting reading all the evolution ideas here because none of you guys seem to fully agree. A Creationist will always agree with another one so long as his religion is the same. Yes, I am young. Science and hisory are my two worst subjects and this was not something we talked about. The way some of you talk about science makes it seem like nothing is defined. When I say theory, I look at it like psychology. There is no proof that a man wants his mother sexually. I do not think we ever evolved, we learned to adapt and survive.

Forgive Giai. She was just the earth goddess.

I do agree with DigitalFudge about evolution not being mans origin.

 

[Kulindahr]

Religious people shouldn't even care and certainly shouldn't feel threatened by evolution. Oh those that think that God directly created Adam and Eve and Earth 10 000 years ago should feel threatened, but only because they are morons.

They're morons twice: on science, and on theology.

 

[Kulindahr]

The only alternative to evolution that fits the observed world would be that God started with non-living material and worked from there, making each new organism almost identical to the last, until over time the different results became so far apart they couldn't interbreed, and in this fashion arrived at the incredible diversity we have now.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I am afraid that my view will be unpopular with some of my closest friends.
Religion is an opiate for the masses. What cannot be explained is handed
off to a higher being, good bad or indifferent, it just isn't Joe Averages fault.
Since pre-historic time 'man' has always required a deity to worship, to adore
and or castigate depending on the circumstances.

Keep in mind that when Marx said that he actually had no problem with local religion. Also, when most religious scientists appear to do the hand-off, they're merely noting that they don't know at THIS point, not consigning the response to the rubbish heap; it's just flowery language and not a surrender.

Modern Religions came about when small groups of cleve,r greedy peoples all
gathered and presenting a united front started offeering advice to the masses.
i.e. How to Dress, eat, copulate ...even ritual scarification as proof of the
belief one holds for the omnipotent all knowing power that rules the existance
of 'mankind.

With the possible exception of circumcision, most modern languages are against ritual scarification, directly or otherwise. Either the body doesn't matter (Buddhism) or they were attempting to solidify the line between them and others in the region. As for the "religion comes from greedy powerful types", that's historically wrong; most of the original prophets either came from poor families or hardly enjoyed opulent lifestyles. Even Buddha, who started as a prince, became a vagabond and never returned to his castles.

Does anyone know of a major religion where the hierarchy does not abide in the lap
of luxury and rewrite their rules to suit the present situation. Anyone know a major
religion that is destitute at the highest levels of command?

Quite a few actually. In fact, it seems the exception rather than the rule. You can even argue that the Pope himself doesn't exactly live in the lap of luxury given that he seems to on the road a lot, and the Vatican isn't exactly known for its modern facilities. And we won't point out that some religions simply do not have much of a hierarchy, such Hinduism or Buddhism.

This is only my personal opinion based on a life of observation...it is not submitted
as irrefutable fact. I continue to seek the eternal truths enveloped within our
universe. Come, join me in the thought process, it is a god given gift...right?

Either way, it is God-given...

RG