[QUOTE=?????]
Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
I just have to pipe in and say that Evolution not equal to recessive traits comming forth, or freak mutations occouring. In fact, most of these are stressed in Genesis. Name an animal that has evolved. I mean, evolved beyond the integrity of its genetic code with out any direct outside influences.
Bipper
It's true.... far easier to justify the enslavement of a race using "scientific" theories. Very easy, actually. Now, the enslavement of an individual is one that has a long and rich history in almost every religion. Usually, it's not so terrible a concept, and falls into a structure of belief in certain forms of honorable repairation of a debt. Kill a man: inherit his family (CRAP!!!). Save some guy's life, end up getting his daughter to marry. Hell, marriage was used as the ultimate form of slavery, and still is, in many ways.
As for evolution, I have only a couple questions.
1- why are fruit flies more genetically similar to humans than they are to house flies? And, for that matter, why are WE more genetically related to said fruit flies than we are to any mammals aside for other primates?
2- how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless. More than useless: you get no flight, but you also lose a pair of perfectly useful forelimbs. Humans and raccoons have proven that hands are better than wings. You do NOT get winged flight from any form of gliding flight, it just doesn't work. The two designs are entirely incompatible, and if you evolve gliding it actually makes it impossible to evolve real flight. Aerodynamics. You can argue about evolution, you can't argue about elementary lift/thrust dynamics.
Evolutionarily, those are impossible scenarios. Absolutely impossible. Human DNA has the exact code for producing fruit fly wings- at no point in our evolutionary history should that have been picked up. No other primate, no other ANIMAL, except the fruit flies themselves have it. It's freakish to the point of B-movie science fiction involving teleportation machines. As for wings: useless unless they're usable. There's nothing in the animal kingdom that uses half-wings. Some animals have vestigial wings, this is true, but those are wings that once worked and have since stopped working. All the evolutionary influence in existance couldn't take a chicken or penguin and make it fly again.
They jsut did. I'm not an expert on evolution, but from the way I understand it, everything is just random mutations. If you happen to get a disadvantagous genetic mutation you are more likely to die and not pass on that gene, whereas if you receive an advantages mutation you are more likely to survive and pass on that gene. It's all random from the way I see it. Creatures didn't evolve a certain way because it would be advantagous, it's just that they DID evolve that way, it happened to be advantagous, and therefore they survived and passed on the genes.how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless. More than useless: you get no flight, but you also lose a pair of perfectly useful forelimbs. Humans and raccoons have proven that hands are better than wings. You do NOT get winged flight from any form of gliding flight, it just doesn't work. The two designs are entirely incompatible, and if you evolve gliding it actually makes it impossible to evolve real flight. Aerodynamics. You can argue about evolution, you can't argue about elementary lift/thrust dynamics.
Originally Posted by Big D
I'm going to cut across the conversation, and say yes! I do have a religion. I'm Hindu.
Rudimentary wings, in the form of furred/feathered limbs, could provide some form of limited gliding ability. A lighter, longer, more densely feathered limb would provide better gliding, till eventually you get a wing that's capable of acrively providing lift, rather than just slowing a fall. I don't see how the two (glide and flight) are necessarily mutually exclusive. Pterosaurs and bats are useful examples.[q=Sasquatch]Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.[/q]It's untrue to say there's "no" evidence, when there's plenty - mainly in the fossil record. It's a matter of simple logic that deeper rock is older than the rock above it. The deeper you go, the further 'back' you can see. In the oldest, deepest fossil-bearing rocks, the most primitve fossils are found. Basic plants, eventually a few insect-like creatures. Later on, you get slightly more complex forms: vertebrates, arthropods. Further still, you find larger fish and amphibians. Eventually, you see the emergence of reptiles, mammal-like reptiles and other land-dwellers - but still very primitive organisms. The further 'up' the record you go, the more elaborate, more complex creatures become: dinosaurs, mammals, primates, other examples. Significantly, it's not just that new species emerge in the fossil record; the more primitive ones often disappear. Like they've been 'replaced'. This is especially true where the fossil record appears to show speciation (the evolution of one species into another), as shown by fossilised horses. The earliest horse fossils are of a small creature, with toes rather than hooves. But as you come forward in time, this smallest horse has vanished, to be replaced by a larger relative; eventually, the toes disappear and are replaced by hooves. Either one species evolved into the other, or else the 'primitive' horses were destroyed one by one, and replaced with an 'improved model'. The same's true for every other species that shows an apparent change over time, in the fossil record.2- how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless.
It'd take one heck of a coincidence for the oldest rocks to contain only primitive life-forms, unless they really were the only form of life present then. Same goes for more recent fossils, too - the record clearly suggests the progressive emergence of more-developed species, and the progressive disappearance of many (but not all) lesser-developed species. It has been estimated that 99.99% of all species that ever existed, are now extinct.
So in reality, there is evidence of new species evolving. Not proof, but evidence.
Technically, Africans are biologically the least developed. Except for maybe one thing...damn, I watch too many pornos.It is expressly stated in Evolutionism. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a certain color or race of people should be enslaved, does it? Whereas Evolutionism does indeed state that Africans are the "least developed" form of man.
The Bible doesn't specifically say that any presently existing tribe or race should be enslaved. It also doesn't say that they shouldn't be, and need I remind you of the Israelites' crusades into Canaan?
Way to make assumptions. Slavery was ILLEGAL in the North. Bias against other races wasn't, of course, and it still ran rampant.By the way, if you didn't know, many people in the South did not own slaves, and many people in the North did at that time. You're probably one of the people who think "the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves!" Besides, what textile factories and such in the North did to their women and children was worse than most slaves had to go through. But we're not on that topic now.
You didn't answer my question. If there is a bias against religion in the scientific community (and there demonstrably is) why do you think it got that way in the first place? Science strives for natural explanations of the universe's various phenomena. Postulating a reason outside of nature doesn't fit very well with that paradigm, does it?Because it doesn't involve God. It doesn't matter if it holds water or not, because not involving God is all it needs for most of "science" to accept it. I thought I already explained this.Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?
Besides, in order for your idea to hold true, you have to make a highly unprovable and very broad generalization that science is some kind of anti-God cult. Science is only against religion when it gets in the way of progress. Basically, you don't tell us how to evaluate facts, and we won't tell you how to get people to not want to break the law.
Heh, if you want to argue against the craptons of evidence that have been established, be my guest. But know that doing so amounts to solipsism, because it's questioning the very validity of reason to promote a supernatural solution in place of a natural one. If you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
Because most science types are VERY arrogant. I mean this in an eye gougingly mean way. Yes, they think if they cannot explain somthing, it cannot exist or it is simply too complex. If somthing does not present itself in the form of a scienctific text, or a logistacal theorom then it must not be explainable, and there for does not exist. This is why I have hated about 90% of science nerds I have met. From my experiences, the are so high on themselves and having to know every little thing that makes the universe tick that it gets sickening. While I don't mind people gaining as much knowlage possable, I do mind arrogance.
/sigh. Science still has not disprovent the Bible, nor does it have much of a leg to stand on. Its a guessing game that entails looking at the small facts that we know, to wonder how the world came about. Like I always say, with enough knowlage, I think that Science and the Bible will have more in common than most science types would like to admit.
Off from this, who says that God even has to exist with in our scope of existance. It could be just as possible that he is a being outside our laws of science. After all, the clear idea of Creationism is that the universe was created. These rules were all made, and made for a reason. We could be comparable to a program written on a computer. The program may be instructed to follow certain rules, that the programmer does not neccesarily have to follow. /shrug If this is how it is, science may never find the proof it seeks.
Bipper
What I don't understand is why people think that evolution and religion are two contradicting concepts. They aren't.
[q=Bipper]Yes, they think if they cannot explain somthing, it cannot exist or it is simply too complex. If somthing does not present itself in the form of a scienctific text, or a logistacal theorom then it must not be explainable, and there for does not exist.[/q]I disagree. Sensible scientists are only too willing to acknowledge that science is limited and incomplete. Evolution, while it fits the facts and evidence, is not fully understood or explained. The origins and nature of the universe, too, aren't fully understood with much dependability.
It's true, however, that there are arrogant and self-righteous types in every field - science, religion, and so on.
Yes Big D, I agree. What I am saying, is that it is much easier to belive science than religion. Somthing that you can clearly see, over somthing you have to belive.
I am not trying to say that the whole field of science is flawed, I am trying to say that people whom are raised in schools, learning science laws and theories are going to simply be more prone to belive that scince > religion. The knowlage that they find in more research of science will fit into their conditioned way of thinking a lot better than religious concepts.
In my mind religion and science are about on the same level. The difference is Science can make you money, which makes it more important (
) for children to learn so that they grow and serve thier government better. Millionares look better on paper than religious humble types.
I really wish that public schools might offer a brief class on at least an over view of religions. Not to spiritually enlighten people, but just for the fact that there is a loth of people whom see other religions as completley different, and just rediculous. I think it would be worth it (especially in the us) to create more of an understanding of other people. (almost on the same lines as cultural studies and social studies)
[/tangent]
Bipper
What, and religion doesn't make money? One word: televangelists. Those bastards make more money in a week than most scientists and engineers see in a year, for doing something that causes society to regress rather than advance. It's one of this age's ironies.The difference is science can make you money, which makes it more important (
You've said that most scientific types are arrogant. That may very well be true, but it's wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not their viewpoint is well-supported and based in fact.
One may say that science is limited. Of course it is. We don't know everything yet. But the epistemology that underlies scientific inquiry is utterly flawless.
I have plenty to reply to, but I'd like to point out this blatantly false and either severely misguided or extremely idiotic statement. Slavery wasn't made illegal until after he Civil War. Some states made slavery illegal, but it wasn't really enforced, and there was no nation-wide ban on slavery until well after the Confederacy broke off.
That is just horrible. Yes, there are people whom take advantage of a religion to make a horde of money. I dont see the relevance in this though, as the origional point was that science can open more higher-paying careers to students. Which allow them to both make money, and be more of use (loosly used) to the government. As for your initial what, try reading the paragraph again. It made perfect sence, though I am a little tired, the idea should be discected quite easily.
*Slaps forhead* What!? Look at the debate and main idea of my post. I was merley answering your querstion pertaining to bias.You've said that most scientific types are arrogant. That may very well be true, but it's wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not their viewpoint is well-supported and based in fact.
Why is there such a Bias. Well arrogance, and ignorance go hand in hand. A man whome looks at facts, will not accept much unless it is sustained by facts that he is The facts are all well and good, but are often portrayed by actual scientists whom are open minded, as Big D had pointed out. Unfortunatley, there is a majority of the Scientific populace whom will kick and scream, and say this is how things work, and when it comes to backing up what they say, will not throw down a single resource.
(personal experiences follow)
I have had several debates here that work in that mannor. If it goes against thier thinking, they will throw out hordes of insults, basless comments. Yet the moment a fact gets thrown down, they back off and simply dissapear, only to come back preaching the same crap that was just proofed wrong.
I have had to get in debates with teachers several times to prove the points I have put down on paper. I had a nasty habbit of studying from other textbooks at the library, and looking at university sites. Often times I would run across somthing that was not in the teachers scope, and it would usually result in a discredited paper, or a lowered grade (even with research information, and detailed logs of sites).
About my senior year in high school, I merely gave up on science for this reason, as it seemd if you thought outside of the box, you would just be ridiculed. Even though the box was never enclosed to begin with. Science has shown that same track record with the Earth is flat nonsence, as well as many other scientific discovereies, which are clearly depicted in the bible.... hmmm.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. So you are saying that philosiphical scince questions are flawless. I guess I really dont see what your sentance gets at here. I dont really say that scince is baseless, or that the root philosophy of the Scientific drive in humans is needless. I merely gest that Christianity and Scinece are prolly closer than we think.One may say that science is limited. Of course it is. We don't know everything yet. But the epistemology that underlies scientific inquiry is utterly flawless.
Bipper
The way I used the word epistemology refers to a way of evaluating knowledge, that of the logical paradigm. It is often used in this manner because, as you said, epistemology is the study of the origin of knowledge.
I only wish science were more relevant in today's culture. South Korea, at one sixth of America's population, is producing an equivalent amount of hard-science specialists. No matter what your standpoint on religion is, that's pretty sad.
I and many others have theorized that there are laws of physics that govern the laws of physics. Take for example the beginning of the universe. To cause the Big Bang would require a theoretically infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to a speed much, much faster than that of light, so matter would expand and the very forces that govern our present-day universe would become distinct. Time itself would be circular in such a situation. In a closed universe, time can be taken to be circular anyway. On the other hand, it's possible that the universe has never existed as a point, but that seems pretty convenient: holding to our current views of time and probability, why would the universe be any more likely to exist in this state than any other?
According to Feynman's sum-over-paths approach to quantum mechanics, a particle not only traverses multiple paths to a destination, it traverses every possible path at once: the path we actually "see" it take is based on the probability that it will take any particular path. This is similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in that it cannot be predicted where a particular subatomic particle will be at any given time by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics extends this to say that it cannot be predicted by any method. So, consider this:
What if the universe itself operates the same way, and we're a possibility? It would definitely lend some new food for thought, especially regarding spacetime and relativity.
Posting Permissions
