Phoenix Network Forums

silentguy wrote:Saying there is prove of evolution is always difficult, cause there always will be arguments like "why are there apes and humans but nothing in between right now" or "what are the chances of evolution really leading to the human"...

Why would there be anything in between? I've never understood why there would have to be a 'missing link' to prove evolution.

The chances of evolution leading to humans is none, as evolution doesn't have a goal. It doesn't strive for anything. It looks at it's surroundings, and says "Hey! What if I tweaked this bit here so this animal could be better adapted. Oh, and that thing too!" etc. A human is not the or a pinnacle of evolution, thinking that we are will lead to problems and stupid questions such as your example.



Also, many people who believe in evolution will not be able to tell you why they believe it. They have nothing to back up their belief with, but they will gladly tell you they still believe in evolution. An interesting fact

Samppa wrote:

silentguy wrote:Saying there is prove of evolution is always difficult, cause there always will be arguments like "why are there apes and humans but nothing in between right now" or "what are the chances of evolution really leading to the human"...

Why would there be anything in between? I've never understood why there would have to be a 'missing link' to prove evolution.
[...]
Also, many people who believe in evolution will not be able to tell you why they believe it. They have nothing to back up their belief with, but they will gladly tell you they still believe in evolution. An interesting fact

People think that the human evolved from the ape, so there must have been steps in between cause an ape giving birth to a human seems weird... if the ape survived after creating something "better", where is the in between... people who argue like that often forget that the apes living right now are of cause not the same apes that humans evolved from but just some other evolution the comon ancestor...

And your last sentence is a prime example why noone should mock "faith" in general cause you can also have faith in other things then gods =)

Personally I belive the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is how we came to be, not god.

Read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I perssonally consider myself a christian, orthodox by rite as i live in eastern europe. Our church never denied evolution. It's more of a religious argument then scientific but thats how i see things: God created the world in seven days , since man did not exist in that time you can't say days existed as they are a creation of man; thus the day here could symbolize anything from a single day to a whole prehistoric age; also it is not specified how God created these things so he could have created them by controlling evolution via hazard factors. Man was made from dust, dust which at least in my country refers to dirt; dirt is earth ,you can find in the earth all the minerals substances and water that you find in the human body. In his own image probably refers more to conciosnss and soul. Perssonally i dont understand why religion has to be opposed to science on this matter.
Heh i knew about the spaghetti monster Hope my grammar wasnt so bad

did you just call us pieces of dirt!

Techinically speaking you are pieces of dirt as you containe all the stuff dirt has:water, iron, calcium. nitrogen, etc. The argument i made is mainly that if you take the Bible in a more methaphorical way then ad literam you get something perfectly plausible by scientific means.

It does make more sense scientifically, but then again since (if) God exists why would he make us scientifically.

Because God created this world to be governed by scientific laws (like phiscs, genetics etc.) he would have to continue by the laws he had already instuted

But really though, as long as your friend isn't a Scientologist, you should just be happy, and not care what their religion is.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:Because God created this world to be governed by scientific laws (like phiscs, genetics etc.) he would have to continue by the laws he had already instuted

Actually, not at all. Scientific laws are completley man-made. Basically us human are oboserving what we see around us and we try to catagorize stuff and find patterns and laws that describe what we see.

As far as we now there may be no 'real' laws that govern the way things work. There are always weird things that happen here and there that our 'laws' can't account for, like a friend of mine who should have died from food poisioning, but ended up walking out perfectly healthy without any medicine or anything.

It all really depends on what your definition of evolution is. In my reality - evolution does exist. What we have become has been greatly affected our constant "evolution" as a human race, developing languages, technologies and cultures. Also the other form of evolution - we are a world that is basically a whole lot of genes using us as a tool for survival. If there isnt a way for them to replicate then that stream dies. We humans have been programmed to furful only two things - survival and replication. Everything else we do is just a by product. We have nearly become too smart for our genes. This is a deep subject and it depends from what angle you takle it from.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:Because God created this world to be governed by scientific laws (like phiscs, genetics etc.) he would have to continue by the laws he had already instuted

This is the same reason I believe "god" if any, could not be omnipotent. There are laws thet govern the universe, these laws are not man made(what is man-made are the equations we formulated to try to mimic these laws).

crowe wrote:I have just discovered that a good friend of mine does not believe in Evolution. Now I'm trying to figure out how to go about it. I'm a very tolerant person and I believe you have the right to your beliefs. But at the same time, ignoring scientific fact and mountains of evidence for an outdated myth seems dangerous and destructive.

In my situation, would you confront him or let him keep his faith?

Does he think god buried those bones?

silentguy wrote:Saying there is prove of evolution is always difficult, cause there always will be arguments like "why are there apes and humans but nothing in between right now" or "what are the chances of evolution really leading to the human"...

I had the same questions before studying anthropology. People don't realize that fossils show these pre-homosapiens branching off into several categories, some believed to coexist with eachother at times. some branches died off and others did better. As for the chances of evolution leading to humans, it seems like a logical transition from an ape; walking upright to conserve energy, a smaller nose since our reliance on smell became less important, a smaller jaw and teeth since we were eating different foods, knees and feet that were optimal for walking rather than grasping tree limbs, less hair due to...guess

vermillion wrote:

crowe wrote:I have just discovered that a good friend of mine does not believe in Evolution. Now I'm trying to figure out how to go about it. I'm a very tolerant person and I believe you have the right to your beliefs. But at the same time, ignoring scientific fact and mountains of evidence for an outdated myth seems dangerous and destructive.

In my situation, would you confront him or let him keep his faith?

Does he think god buried those bones?

Ah, taking the simple approach. The evidence is so blatently under their noses, I just can't see how anyone can deny it. What responses have you had from that question, if any?