[quote]Sloth wrote:
And they’re still stuck on evolution. [/quote]
Thread title?[/quote]
Name it, “Ape to human can’t be observed, so we’ll just spin our wheels for umpteen thousand pages with no definitive outcome between the two sides.” News flash, no space shuttles have crashed into the ‘firmament.’ Nor, do we need submarines to transverse the waters above it. You guys get caught up with evolution instead of dealing with the obvious. Thought I’d save you folks from wasting your time, again, with your myopic focus on the fossil record. Pardon me for being a bit too clever for this rehashed, miss the forest for the trees discussion. Let me know who changes sides. Heh.[/quote]
I started this thread in GAL to see where most people stood on the issue.
It was never meant to actually turn into a debate. It only did when it was moved here.[/quote]
And they shoulda left it there. I disagree with the mods always shoving this into PWI.[/quote]
Quality of the site is maintained by their actions. By confining religion and controversies where religion sticks its ugly fat nose in to this cesspit, they are keeping the site clean(ish).
Quality of the site is maintained by their actions. By confining religion and controversies where religion sticks its ugly fat nose in to this cesspit, they are keeping the site clean(ish).[/quote]
Interesting perspective.
I guess when you think hate must for some reason be injected into the discussion you may very well be right.[/quote]
Let’s put it this way. Putting such threads in here keeps people like Tirib mostly confined to posting in PWI. If every second thread of GAL was injected with preaching and false humility, the quality of the threads in there would rapidly decline from their intended function.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And they’re still stuck on evolution. [/quote]
Thread title?[/quote]
Name it, “Ape to human can’t be observed, so we’ll just spin our wheels for umpteen thousand pages with no definitive outcome between the two sides.” News flash, no space shuttles have crashed into the ‘firmament.’ Nor, do we need submarines to transverse the waters above it. You guys get caught up with evolution instead of dealing with the obvious. Thought I’d save you folks from wasting your time, again, with your myopic focus on the fossil record. Pardon me for being a bit too clever for this rehashed, miss the forest for the trees discussion. Let me know who changes sides. Heh.[/quote]
But that only deals with one branch of creationism.
Well, since no definition of species is forthcoming, though we have learned that I am apparently in need of some therapeutic counseling, maybe I will feel like pulling one or two of the better definitions of “species” from a creationist website tomorrow.
Hey, if I was PH, this is what I would use. Still BS but grade A BS.
It goes something like this. Yes, speciation does exist BUT the Bible talks of “kinds” of animals, not species and “kind” refers to the family or maybe genus of animals, not the species itself.
Therefore, while speciation is happening and observable, new kinds of animals do not develop so there.
What makes it so charming is that all of this is, more or less, true. It is kind of circular but not on an immediately obvious level.
Of course it conflicts with link 1 which happens to be from the very same website…
Not an argument or anything, just something I thought was pretty interesting for those interested in evolution.
World-first hybrid shark found off Australia
By Amy Coopes (AFP) ? 6 days ago
SYDNEY ? Scientists said on Tuesday that they had discovered the world’s first hybrid sharks in Australian waters, a potential sign the predators were adapting to cope with climate change.
The mating of the local Australian black-tip shark with its global counterpart, the common black-tip, was an unprecedented discovery with implications for the entire shark world, said lead researcher Jess Morgan.
“It’s very surprising because no one’s ever seen shark hybrids before, this is not a common occurrence by any stretch of the imagination,” Morgan, from the University of Queensland, told AFP.
“This is evolution in action.”
Evolution is true. Micro and Macro. There is zero evidence for creationism. Gaps in our knowledge are not a weakness in evolutionary theory. So far, it’s water tight. The old ‘rabbit in the pre-Cambrian’ scenario would disprove it more or less in a single discovery. It hasn’t happened yet, and when you think about what we have found (fossil record is actually a lot better than people think) really it or something similar should have been found. If it is, science will go back to the drawing board.
Hell, even without the fossil record, the evidence is immense.
Gravity is also a theory and people seem pretty happy with that one. I don’t see why Evolution is different. Religion once told us that the earth was the center of the universe, so we know it has got stuff wrong before, why are people so stubborn about the origins of life on the Earth. Are we really meant to believe that the parasites than burrow into the eyes, slowly making the host blind came about through any other mechanism than evolution?
[quote]pegasus3 wrote:
Evolution is true. Micro and Macro. There is zero evidence for creationism. Gaps in our knowledge are not a weakness in evolutionary theory. So far, it’s water tight. The old ‘rabbit in the pre-Cambrian’ scenario would disprove it more or less in a single discovery. It hasn’t happened yet, and when you think about what we have found (fossil record is actually a lot better than people think) really it or something similar should have been found. If it is, science will go back to the drawing board.
Hell, even without the fossil record, the evidence is immense.
Gravity is also a theory and people seem pretty happy with that one. I don’t see why Evolution is different. Religion once told us that the earth was the center of the universe, so we know it has got stuff wrong before, why are people so stubborn about the origins of life on the Earth. Are we really meant to believe that the parasites than burrow into the eyes, slowly making the host blind came about through any other mechanism than evolution?
[/quote]
Because for some people it is very important that we are not just semi aware animals but an entire kind of being altogether, blessed with a special relationship with God or some such.
Did you hear Santorums “if evolution is true than all the rules he lived by are meaningless”?
I am afraid that he actually means this, without a final authority that has a plan he is spiritually lost.
People throw logic over board for far less, a semi attractive female is more than enough for most.
once you accept that the aliens created the species, and the missing link is the time that the aliens had sex with us (their progeny), it will all make sense.
then you can quit trying to explain the noises in the dark, or thunder or whatever seems to scare you, and whatever your feeble minds need to explain.
[quote]paleotool wrote:
Evolution and observable science for me. Boring and unsatisfying for some people for some reason. [/quote]
The reason is simple: modern science is simply about observing, generating hypotheses, testing how well they accord with our observations, and adjusting accordingly.
Notice how this approach leaves certain questions inaccessible:
-what is the mind?
-what is the soul?
-is the soul immortal?
And countless others. Hence the lack of satisfaction with the type of questions/answers addressed by empirical science.
[quote]pegasus3 wrote:
Evolution is true. Micro and Macro. There is zero evidence for creationism. Gaps in our knowledge are not a weakness in evolutionary theory. So far, it’s water tight. The old ‘rabbit in the pre-Cambrian’ scenario would disprove it more or less in a single discovery. It hasn’t happened yet, and when you think about what we have found (fossil record is actually a lot better than people think) really it or something similar should have been found. If it is, science will go back to the drawing board.
Hell, even without the fossil record, the evidence is immense.
Gravity is also a theory and people seem pretty happy with that one. I don’t see why Evolution is different. Religion once told us that the earth was the center of the universe, so we know it has got stuff wrong before, why are people so stubborn about the origins of life on the Earth. Are we really meant to believe that the parasites than burrow into the eyes, slowly making the host blind came about through any other mechanism than evolution?
[/quote]
When you post like this ^ from your church it would be nice to see a pic once in awhile.[/quote]
Ha! Cute! So talking about evolution in a thread about evolution is now ‘preaching’!? Okay, cool. We will call it preaching, and the lab or lecture theater is now the church of evolution and we are a belief system. Which I guess we obviously are, just one that is very much subject to change. Fine. But I don’t see how we have advanced the argument on any side.
What about those parasites? I am genuinely interested in an explanation that does not involve evolution.
[quote]pegasus3 wrote:
Evolution is true. Micro and Macro. There is zero evidence for creationism. Gaps in our knowledge are not a weakness in evolutionary theory. So far, it’s water tight. The old ‘rabbit in the pre-Cambrian’ scenario would disprove it more or less in a single discovery. It hasn’t happened yet, and when you think about what we have found (fossil record is actually a lot better than people think) really it or something similar should have been found. If it is, science will go back to the drawing board.
Hell, even without the fossil record, the evidence is immense.
Gravity is also a theory and people seem pretty happy with that one. I don’t see why Evolution is different. Religion once told us that the earth was the center of the universe, so we know it has got stuff wrong before, why are people so stubborn about the origins of life on the Earth. Are we really meant to believe that the parasites than burrow into the eyes, slowly making the host blind came about through any other mechanism than evolution?
[/quote]
Because for some people it is very important that we are not just semi aware animals but an entire kind of being altogether, blessed with a special relationship with God or some such.
Did you hear Santorums “if evolution is true than all the rules he lived by are meaningless”?
I am afraid that he actually means this, without a final authority that has a plan he is spiritually lost.
People throw logic over board for far less, a semi attractive female is more than enough for most. [/quote]
Yeah, this is true.
And I cannot possibly imagine a scenario whereby the evolution of cohesion and empathy within the human species would be beneficial. At all…
Notice how this approach leaves certain questions inaccessible:
-what is the mind?
-what is the soul?
-is the soul immortal?
And countless others. Hence the lack of satisfaction with the type of questions/answers addressed by empirical science.
[/quote]
Wait a sec.
You’re asking the wrong questions.
You should be asking, what good reason do I have to believe souls exist? Until you find physical evidence to support this claim the rational response would be to dismiss the notion of the soul completely.
As for the mind it’s a product of the brain. No mind exists in absence of a physical brain. Do you have any evidence of a mind existing in absence of a physical brain?
