[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
On that front, as I mentioned before, I’m going to offer the 3rd option of genetic alteration by an alien race. I mean, why not?
That could explain the supposed missing link, as far fetched as it sounds.[/quote]
Why not?
Because there’s no evidence to support that claim.
Are you believer of Raelism or something?[/quote]
I could write a book. Would that be evidence enough?
I don’t know why I bothered with this thread.
[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
I’m fairly certain it has been observed on certain bacteria before. That doesn’t prove evolution is real?[/quote]
At that level or “scale” if you will, of course it does.
It’s a no-brainer that it, adaptation, occurs or even as “limited” speciation.[/quote]
Yup, that’s what I was saying. Evolution has been observed, but it still hasn’t been proven in humans - so on that front, right now, there is as much chance that we evolved from something else as there is that we were created by something else.[/quote]
What do you mean “proven in humans”? How do you “prove” evolution within the scope of a singular species. Can you personally define evolution? You understand, of course, that intermediary species tend to die out, which is why I hope you won’t reply with some sort of missing link argument. [/quote]
Intermediary species die out, so then why can I not ask where their remains are?
I’m saying that I haven’t seen evidence where we’ve observed evolution in humans. But, the fact that it is observed at a micro levels, means that it certainly could/should exist at a larger scale with other species, such as us.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Yup, that’s what I was saying. Evolution has been observed, but it still hasn’t been proven in humans -[/quote]
To me and ~95% scientific community it has been.
[/quote]
It’s the most plausible for me, but until they fit the pieces together nice and neatly, it’s still open to discussion and debate.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
I’m fairly certain it has been observed on certain bacteria before. That doesn’t prove evolution is real?[/quote]
At that level or “scale” if you will, of course it does.
It’s a no-brainer that it, adaptation, occurs or even as “limited” speciation.[/quote]
Yup, that’s what I was saying. Evolution has been observed, but it still hasn’t been proven in humans - so on that front, right now, there is as much chance that we evolved from something else as there is that we were created by something else.[/quote]
Yup.
It is just a major coincidence that we look decidedly ape like and share more than 95% of our genes with some of them.
Which leads me to believe that we are really marsupials. [/quote]
On that front, as I mentioned before, I’m going to offer the 3rd option of genetic alteration by an alien race. I mean, why not?
That could explain the supposed missing link, as far fetched as it sounds.[/quote]
Granted, but that would raise the immediate question, where did they come from.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
…there is as much chance that we evolved from something else as there is that we were created by something else.[/quote]
Neither side can legitimately be in the position to assign odds in a matter such as this one.[/quote]
True, I think we should approach everything with an open mind.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Yup, that’s what I was saying. Evolution has been observed, but it still hasn’t been proven in humans -[/quote]
To me and ~95% scientific community it has been.
[/quote]
Making up arbitrary, uncited percentages of the scientific community about anything is a meaningless waste of bandwidth.[/quote]
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Evolution doesn’t disprove a creator. It sure disproves and invalidates Christianity though.
1.[/quote]
Not really. I was put through 12 years of Catholic school, and evolution was taught as fact. As far as I know the Catholic church accepts evolution. Evolution only invalidates closed-minded sects of Christianity that insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. In that respect, evolution invalidates the tenents of any religion that insists on a literal interpretation of their creation story, and they all have them.
Like people in here have already said, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive and they don’t need to be. But people are defensive and feel attacked at even the slightest dig at their religion, so they hunker down and dig in for a side that they don’t necessarily agree with. It’s basic psychology to fight the hardest and loudest for the things that are the most lacking in supporting evidence, because on some level we know that our arguments are weak in those situations.
I’m not religious, but guys like your boy Hitchens there are (were) excessively disdainful.[/quote]
They undermine the only authority they had when they start undermining their own holy book like they do. Evolution is utterly incompatible with the bible, and any true Christian MUST call it a filthy lie, or else be a watered down compromising coward.
Hitchens took a stand and spoke his mind clearly, you should take care not to confuse disdain for religion with disdain for any religious person.[/quote]
I obviously won’t make any headway with you on this, but understand that I am arguing for a side I don’t take personally; religions evolve. To pretend that doesn’t happen or undermines the faith is ridiculous. I don’t know Bible verses so I can’t quote them (nor do I care to look that srt of information up), but I think Jesus stressed the message of holy text, not the letter of the law, so to speak.
I like Hitchens. He was a very intelligent man, but he was also very pompous and condescending. I happen to agree with many of his points, but he comes off as very disdainful of anyone espousing religion. Whether he actually says it is irrelevant, because he makes it very clear that anyone who believes in such things is incredibly stupid. That is disdain, in my book.[/quote]
You spent 12 years in catholic school and don’t know any bible verses, yet you are confident in talking about what Jesus “stressed.”
Yeah I think we can safely end this little discussion now. “My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge, you condescending bastard!” LOL you sound pretty much like every brain dead preacher they pitted against Hitchens.
It’s too bad really, I always wanted to see him come up against a little stronger opposition. Both Pushharder and Tiribulus would do.[/quote]
I’ll be damned…exactly what I knew would happen. I can’t quote Bible verse because we didn’t memorize it, chief. We actually discussed the message because, shocker, we accepted that words written by a bunch of dudes many years after some other dude’s death probably weren’t exact.
For emphasis: I disavowed Catholicism and all other theisms long ago, but it doesn’t mean I instantly forgot what my former religion emphasized. You’re no better than a zealot, because you are one. You’ve just elected to become a Hitchens zealot, which I suppose is slightly better since we at least have video evidence of his existence.
Enjoy dangling from his jock and not coming up with your own ideas, bud.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
I’m fairly certain it has been observed on certain bacteria before. That doesn’t prove evolution is real?[/quote]
At that level or “scale” if you will, of course it does.
It’s a no-brainer that it, adaptation, occurs or even as “limited” speciation.[/quote]
Yup, that’s what I was saying. Evolution has been observed, but it still hasn’t been proven in humans - so on that front, right now, there is as much chance that we evolved from something else as there is that we were created by something else.[/quote]
Yup.
It is just a major coincidence that we look decidedly ape like and share more than 95% of our genes with some of them.
Which leads me to believe that we are really marsupials. [/quote]
On that front, as I mentioned before, I’m going to offer the 3rd option of genetic alteration by an alien race. I mean, why not?
That could explain the supposed missing link, as far fetched as it sounds.[/quote]
Granted, but that would raise the immediate question, where did they come from.[/quote]
You got me there.
The way I see it, the universe is infinite and infinitely old. We’ll probably never know where it started.
Aaaaand they’re still stuck on the evolution angle…
[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I don’t understand why creationism and evolution are deemed to be mutually exclusive.
One would seem to speak to how the universe came about and the other deals with successive changes in generations of populations.
Believing in evolution doesn’t mean that you don’t think a greater being started everything at T=0.
Believing in creationism doesn’t mean that you don’t believe that we are descended from apes.[/quote]
Then you don’t understand one or the other properly. [/quote]
See my response to Bonez.
Perhaps in your bid to “take this a bit personally”, you’ve forgotten that a throwaway one-liner isn’t the same as a cogent argument.
I think a lot of people misinterpret the creation story. It is clearly not a literal description of the creation of earth, animals, light, the heavenly bodies and man. It is symbolic; austere; abstract - ‘God sweeping over the water’ ‘a darkness over the surface,’ primordial bodies of water etc
There is also an argument that Gen 1.1 - 2.3 is from a later ‘P’(Priestly) source redacted at a later date. In fact different sources are clearly evident within the creation story - e.g. one mentions Eve was created from Adam’s rib another that she was created from dust. The fact that this was never considered a problem at the time when they were compiled indicates that the creation story was never intended to be taken literally.
The creation story has many similarities to other Eastern creation stories. There is also a great deal of similarity between the flood story and other Eastern flood stories - e.g. Gilgamesh. There actually was a flood at the right time - 2750 and 2900 BC - the Sumerian flood layer. The idea that mankind was killed off seems obviously symbolic to me as well. An earlier version is in the Gilgamesh and an even earlier Sumerian version has been found that confirms the destruction of the ‘cult centres:’
‘All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful,
Attacked as one,
At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult-centers.
After, for seven days,
the flood sweeps over the cult centers.
After, for seven days and seven nights,
The flood had swept over the land,
And the huge boat had been tossed
About by the windstorms on the great waters,’
The Sumerian Noah was Ziusudra. None of this should be of any surprise to anyone who knows a bit about the period in question - the Jewish people do not begin until Abraham is chosen.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]digitalairair wrote:
I already posted this but for some reason half of my posts don’t get through on here, so I’ll post it again.
I suspect that this is a troll post.
Most of the posters on T-Nation are reasonable, rational, intelligent and well educated adults who seem to less than interested in anything other than ‘truth’ ( suggested by the training out look and philosophy and approaches that are presented here).
So it seems to me to be a little bit of an insult to fellow posters here when somebody has to make a post asking the obvious:
EVOLUTION is a FACT. COLD BLOODED, EVIDENCE DRIVEN FACT.
The question should not be whether evolution, the physical mechanism itself is “junk science”,
but rather evolutionary psychology is.
If the body is evolved, then the same goes for the brain, and if the brain is just what the physical stuff in the brain does, then the mind has to have modules that are evolved too, to suit and solve certain evolutionary pressures and problems that faced our ancestors.
How much of our thinking is still “stuck” in the stone age ? (why we are pre-wired for sugar, why men cheat more often than women, and etc). And how much of that type of thinking is hurting us? How much discrepancy between our cavemen mindset and our modern mindset is too much of a gap for us to function properly?
Should one fall into the naturalistic fallacy? or is it OK to justify your behaviors once in a while because we were evolved and hard-wired for certain predispositions?
I would love to hear from some of you about those issues.
[/quote]
BTW, anyone want to take a stab at plausibly denying that evolution is a religious matter to this poster?
When you have to scream at the top of your lungs to make your point > "
EVOLUTION is a FACT. COLD BLOODED, EVIDENCE DRIVEN FACT," you are deep, deep, deep into your dogma.[/quote]
When I have to yell at someone because the Ipod he listens too drowns all other sound it is not me who is deliberately hard of hearing.
You are welcome.
[quote]digitalairair wrote:
I already posted this but for some reason half of my posts don’t get through on here, so I’ll post it again.
I suspect that this is a troll post.
Most of the posters on T-Nation are reasonable, rational, intelligent and well educated adults who seem to less than interested in anything other than ‘truth’ ( suggested by the training out look and philosophy and approaches that are presented here).
So it seems to me to be a little bit of an insult to fellow posters here when somebody has to make a post asking the obvious:
EVOLUTION is a FACT. COLD BLOODED, EVIDENCE DRIVEN FACT.
The question should not be whether evolution, the physical mechanism itself is “junk science”,
but rather evolutionary psychology is.
If the body is evolved, then the same goes for the brain, and if the brain is just what the physical stuff in the brain does, then the mind has to have modules that are evolved too, to suit and solve certain evolutionary pressures and problems that faced our ancestors.
How much of our thinking is still “stuck” in the stone age ? (why we are pre-wired for sugar, why men cheat more often than women, and etc). And how much of that type of thinking is hurting us? How much discrepancy between our cavemen mindset and our modern mindset is too much of a gap for us to function properly?
Should one fall into the naturalistic fallacy? or is it OK to justify your behaviors once in a while because we were evolved and hard-wired for certain predispositions?
I would love to hear from some of you about those issues.
[/quote]
There really is no naturalistic fallacy here.
The naturalistic fallacy would be, I am evolved that way therefore I should or therefore it is good.
The question is whether you possibly can escape that, given that your moral intuitions and the very categories of thinking are hardwired too.