Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

See, that's what I'm saying. We have this theory that people came from Ape-like creatures that some people say exist and others say don't exist. But of course, those beings died off due to natural selection

Not "died off" - more like, "continued to evolve". And... I don't know what the current thinking is, but one that I have heard is... there were two species of human-like creatures during the early days of man - Neanderthals and Cro-Magnan. We've found skeletal remains of both types that date to similar time periods. The Neanderthals had a size advantage but the Cro-Magnans had a smarts advantage. The idea is that the Neanderthals were eliminated by the Cro-Magnans and/or interbred with them to from the homo sapien species.

I'm sure famine can straighten me out if I'm off anywhere.

 

[Swift]

Not "died off" - more like, "continued to evolve". And... I don't know what the current thinking is, but one that I have heard is... there were two species of human-like creatures during the early days of man - Neanderthals and Cro-Magnan. We've found skeletal remains of both types that date to similar time periods. The Neanderthals had a size advantage but the Cro-Magnans had a smarts advantage. The idea is that the Neanderthals were eliminated by the Cro-Magnans and/or interbred with them to from the homo sapien species.

I'm sure famine can straighten me out if I'm off anywhere.

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that one.

 

[Famine]

I don't need to elaborate. danoff's on the money.

My question was, which "missing link" is it you think we need to find?

 

[Swift]

Wow, you guys have some serious faith there.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, you guys have some serious faith there.

??

 

[Swift]

??

"We think that might have happened, possibly, on the chance of this going on..."

The theory is based on scattered facts that take everybit as much faith to believe in as creationism. There is no proof of evolution(as the origin of species). There are some things that point to it. But to say that we have 100% concrete evidence simply isn't true.

So, I say again that you guys have incredible faith.

 

[Danoff]

"We think that might have happened, possibly, on the chance of this going on..."

The theory is based on scattered facts that take everybit as much faith to believe in as creationism. There is no proof of evolution(as the origin of species). There are some things that point to it. But to say that we have 100% concrete evidence simply isn't true.

So, I say again that you guys have incredible faith.

...and again I say to you I have faith in nothing. I believe nothing with 100% concrete certainty besides the fact that I exist.

For the 100th time I repeat to you swift, I do not believe in evolution. I think evolution is the most probable explanation we have given the facts. There is a big difference - one requires faith, the other does not.

 

[code_kev]

Creationists = the modern flat earth society.

The theory is based on scattered facts that take everybit as much faith to believe in as creationism

Except we have physical evidence and information gathered by experts in their field. And you have a book. One book. Wrote by farmers who claimed to speak to God, what in modern terms would be called "mad people". Please, tell me how this evidence equals the evidence to back up Evolution.

What ever next!

 

[Swift]

...and again I say to you I have faith in nothing. I believe nothing with 100% concrete certainty besides the fact that I exist.

For the 100th time I repeat to you swift, I do not believe in evolution. I think evolution is the most probable explanation we have given the facts. There is a big difference - one requires faith, the other does not.

LOL, call it what you want Danoff. Constantly saying that you only believe in yourself is really starting to become mondane. infact, it's almost denying reality. There is a world outside your brain and it's the same world that we're all in. So, instead of hiding behind yourself, why not go outside yourself a bit.

Give it a shot, you might like it.

Creationists = the modern flat earth society.

It takes the same amount of "faith", "Belief" or "imagination" to believe in evolution as it does creation. If you don't think that's true, then you are the closed minded one.

As far as the farmers thing goes...you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Not one clue.

 

[code_kev]

If you don't think that's true, then you are the closed minded one.

Using common sense does not make one closed minded. The difference is that Evolution has evidence, REAL evidence that makes sense. Creationism has none. Nothing. Diddly squat. The only ones who back it up are horribly biased religious scientists(I use the term scientist in the loosest term possible, I don't class pseudo as science).

 

[Swift]

Using common sense does not make one closed minded. The difference is that Evolution has evidence, REAL evidence that makes sense. Creationism has none. Nothing. Diddly squat. The only ones who back it up are horribly biased religious scientists.

you know what's funny about you codekev. You talk like your sitting next to Famine studying all these things. Do you even understand the concept of evolution as the origin of species? Can, you in detail, describe why life would come out of the water onto land? Or how Mammals "evolved" from reptiles?

I'm just wondering. Because at least I can backup my "Fundie" beliefs. You sound like you're riding the coattails of some of the other members here.

 

[Danoff]

LOL, call it what you want Danoff. Constantly saying that you only believe in yourself is really starting to become mondane. infact, it's almost denying reality. There is a world outside your brain and it's the same world that we're all in. So, instead of hiding behind yourself, why not go outside yourself a bit.

Give it a shot, you might like it.

Statements like this one show me that you don't understand how I (and many atheists and agnostics) view reality. You see reality in black and white, good and evil, God and the devil. I see reality in shades of grey probabilities. This is likely, that is unlikely. The christian God is unlikely, evolution is likely.

Just stop claiming that I have faith or believe in evolution ok?

 

[Famine]

LOL, call it what you want Danoff. Constantly saying that you only believe in yourself is really starting to become mondane. infact, it's almost denying reality. There is a world outside your brain and it's the same world that we're all in. So, instead of hiding behind yourself, why not go outside yourself a bit.

Give it a shot, you might like it.

Here's an experiment. It needs two players.

Player 1 we'll call "helper". Player 2 we'll call "you".

Player 2 - you - wears ear defenders, a blindfold, a nose plug, has their mouth taped shut, wears a full body jumpsuit and has their arms tied behind their back, facing the wall. Player 1 can bring any 5 objects of their choosing into the room and place them onto a table behind Player 2. Only, they don't have to bring 5. They can bring less, or more, or none. Or take some away.

Now, Player 2 must say - once their mouth has been untaped - what the objects are, without moving anything but the appartus required for speech and continued autonomic functions.


The thing is, in that situation, you're aware of nothing but yourself - that which your mind can perceive. You don't know how many objects Player 1 has brought into the room, much less what they are. You don't even know for sure that there's a table there any more, or that Player 1 is the same person who started being Player 1 - or is even there.

There IS a whole universe outside your brain. But until your brain detects it, its form or even its very existence cannot be determined.

 

[code_kev]

you know what's funny about you codekev. You talk like your sitting next to Famine studying all these things. Do you even understand the concept of evolution as the origin of species? Can, you in detail, describe why life would come out of the water onto land? Or how Mammals "evolved" from reptiles?

I'm just wondering. Because at least I can backup my "Fundie" beliefs. You sound like you're riding the coattails of some of the other members here.

In "detail", no. OFC not. I don't study these things. I do how ever have a what can be considered a basic understanding of it, enough to know that creationism is, and allways will be regarded as a joke. I have also never claimed to have the knowledge in this subject matter that other members have, but I am smart enough to use logic and reason to see which is the most possible. It's a simple case of evidence versus no evidence. It's odd how fundies are happy to use this reasoning themselves until it conflicts with their beliefs.

 

[Swift]

Statements like this one show me that you don't understand how I (and many atheists and agnostics) view reality. You see reality in black and white, good and evil, God and the devil. I see reality in shades of grey probabilities. This is likely, that is unlikely. The christian God is unlikely, evolution is likely.

Just stop claiming that I have faith or believe in evolution ok?

Actually, you don't see reality. You just see yourself. Outside of that, anything is possible. Even God. So, again, you are just hiding behind yourself.

Believe:
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

I'd say at least one of those applies to your opinion of evolution.

In "detail", no. OFC not. I don't study these things. I do how ever have a what can be considered a basic understanding of it, enough to know that creationism is, and allways will be regarded as a joke. I have also never claimed to have the knowledge in this subject matter that other members have, but I am smart enough to use logic and reason to see which is the most possible. It's a simple case of evidence versus no evidence.

So, you don't know much about either side, but your common sense tells you that you're right? Now THAT is closed minded.

 

[code_kev]

So, you don't know much about either side, but your common sense tells you that you're right? Now THAT is closed minded.

A pathetic attempt to twist what I said.

pos·si·ble (pŏs'ə-bəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.

I hope this helps.

 

[Swift]

A pathetic attempt to twist what I said.

pos·si·ble (pŏs'ə-bəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.

I hope this helps.

Ok, let's look at what you said:

In "detail", no. OFC not. I don't study these things. I do how ever have a what can be considered a basic understanding of it, enough to know that creationism is, and allways will be regarded as a joke. I have also never claimed to have the knowledge in this subject matter that other members have, but I am smart enough to use logic and reason to see which is the most possible. It's a simple case of evidence versus no evidence. It's odd how fundies are happy to use this reasoning themselves until it conflicts with their beliefs.

How can you know what is and isn't possible, and feel so strongly about it, but have extremely limited knowledge? I'm serious. When we started this conversation, my knowledge of the evolutionary theory was very small. Now, I know much more about it thanks to Famine and others.

And you've showed your incredible lack of knowledge about the bible plenty of times.

So, again, you know have much info, but you've said that Evolution is more possible(when the word you really wanted was probable) because of your common sense. That is what you said. Now, if you want to amend that, no problem. But that is what you said.

 

[code_kev]

Probable would have been a much better choice of word. I also meant that it seemed more probable to myself, I wasn't trying to pretend that my opinions on this subject are really that important. I'm not utterly clueless though, I'm just terrible at putting points across online. I've had lengthy debates on this topic with Christian friends of mine in the past, so I do have some perspective of both sides.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, you don't see reality. You just see yourself. Outside of that, anything is possible. Even God. So, again, you are just hiding behind yourself.

Believe:
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

I'd say at least one of those applies to your opinion of evolution.

...and again I say to you I have faith in nothing. I believe nothing with 100% concrete certainty besides the fact that I exist.

I percieve what could be called reality, but I don't know absolute truth. Outside of my knowledge that I exist, anything is possible - Even God.


What is wrong with seeing knowledge as probability? Especially when everything and anything can be questioned - it makes the most sense to take things based on likelyhood rather than faith.

 

[Pako]

Here's an experiment. It needs two players.

Player 1 we'll call "helper". Player 2 we'll call "you".

Player 2 - you - wears ear defenders, a blindfold, a nose plug, has their mouth taped shut, wears a full body jumpsuit and has their arms tied behind their back, facing the wall. Player 1 can bring any 5 objects of their choosing into the room and place them onto a table behind Player 2. Only, they don't have to bring 5. They can bring less, or more, or none. Or take some away.

Now, Player 2 must say - once their mouth has been untaped - what the objects are, without moving anything but the appartus required for speech and continued autonomic functions.


The thing is, in that situation, you're aware of nothing but yourself - that which your mind can perceive. You don't know how many objects Player 1 has brought into the room, much less what they are. You don't even know for sure that there's a table there any more, or that Player 1 is the same person who started being Player 1 - or is even there.

There IS a whole universe outside your brain. But until your brain detects it, its form or even its very existence cannot be determined.

Exactly! Couldn't agree more with you. You are absolutely correct. Regardless of whether or not it can be detected, it still exists.

Now what about Player 3 who watched the whole thing, wrote down what objects player 1 brought into the room and later gave that list to player 2 when player 2 was able to get out of his/her jump suit. Now player 2 has a choice to believe or not believe what player 3 wrote down as reality. Better yet, let have 10 different players record what they saw and later give their list to player 2 80 years later. Player two now has 10 lists, all with the same objects listed. Now will player 2 believe what he read?

Interesting.....

 

[Danoff]

Now what about Player 3 who watched the whole thing, wrote down what objects player 1 brought into the room and later gave that list to player 2 when player 2 was able to get out of his/her jump suit. Now player 2 has a choice to believe or not believe what player 3 wrote down as reality. Better yet, let have 10 different players record what they saw and later give their list to player 2 80 years later. Player two now has 10 lists, all with the same objects listed. Now will player 2 believe what he read?

Not if the 10 people who generated the lists all got together and talked it over, and they were 100 years old after the 80 years had passed.

I don't know about you but if 10 100 year old people got together and agreed on which ten items were in a room they were in 80 years ago - I don't think I'd necessarily even believe they were in the room.

 

[Pako]

danoff,

So you would choose not to believe them, and that would be your choice. 10 people with all their senses about them, and you (assuming you are player 1) with no senses about you would not believe them. I would say you're making a bad choice given the fact that you had all your senses essentially turned off, but that's not for me to judge.

 

[Famine]

Exactly! Couldn't agree more with you. You are absolutely correct. Regardless of whether or not it can be detected, it still exists.

What exists? Is there anything there TO exist?

However, moving onto your example, say the ten players write down what colours the objects are. Assume one (about normal) is colourblind and says everything is grey. Assume one is totally blind (about normal) and either makes up a colour based on how it smells or omits one altogether. Of the eight remaining, four are women and say helpful things like turqoise, eau-de-nil and duck egg and four are men and say blue, green or bluey-green. Would your original player know exactly what the object was on the basis of this "information", or would he have only a rough idea?


Nevertheless, it's all moot. We can play the game now. You're Player 2 (you). I'm Player 1 (helper).

There is a desk in front of me. I have lined up five objects on it. What are they?

 

[Pako]

What exists? Is there anything there TO exist?

However, moving onto your example, say the ten players write down what colours the objects are. Assume one (about normal) is colourblind and says everything is grey. Assume one is totally blind (about normal) and either makes up a colour based on how it smells or omits one altogether. Of the eight remaining, four are women and say helpful things like turqoise, eau-de-nil and duck egg and four are men and say blue, green or bluey-green. Would your original player know exactly what the object was on the basis of this "information", or would he have only a rough idea?


Nevertheless, it's all moot. We can play the game now. You're Player 2 (you). I'm Player 1 (helper).

There is a desk in front of me. I have lined up five objects on it. What are they?

As far as the blind guy, color blind guy, ect.... even with all these handicaps or differences in how they interact with reality, it's even more amazing that all the items were still listed correctly.

And on to our experiment, nice trick, you only have 4 items in front of you.

Now, have 10 of your colleagues come and look at the items and have them email me their results without being coached as to why they are doing it.

Then I will answer your question.

 

[Danoff]

Now, have 10 of your colleagues come and look at the items and have them email me their results without being coached as to why they are doing it.

Then I will answer your question.

Famine,

Also make sure that your 10 colleagues wait 80 years (by which time most of them will be dead) before they are asked to recall what items were placed and put them in a room together to come up with the results.

 

[Grand Prix]

"500 years ago EVERYONE knew the Earth was flat. 400 years ago EVERYONE knew the Sun rotated around the Earth. And today you found that there is alien life on this planet. Imagine what you'll know, tomorrow." ~ Agent Kay, Men In Black

So I repeat Famine's question, what is there TO exist?

 

[Pako]

Famine,

Also make sure that your 10 colleagues wait 80 years (by which time most of them will be dead) before they are asked to recall what items were placed and put them in a room together to come up with the results.

I doubt I'll still be around, but you could have them contact my kids. Nah, you better have them send it soon so I know what the emails are for so I don't delete them as spam.

 

[Grand Prix]

Make sure they send Pako a package with UPS Famine.

 

[Pako]

"500 years ago EVERYONE knew the Earth was flat. 400 years ago EVERYONE knew the Sun rotated around the Earth. And today you found that there is alien life on this planet. Imagine what you'll know, tomorrow." ~ Agent Kay, Men In Black

So I repeat Famine's question, what is there TO exist?

If we're still taking about the first table/object experiment, the 5 objects, the room, the table, the players, ect....all exist, regardless of what player 2 can detect. Player 2's detection or lack there of does not make something real or not real. Player 2's perception of reality would be something totally different in this scenario unless he accepts the lists from the 10 observers as truth, then his perception of reality would coincide with the truth of the existence of the objects.

 

[Grand Prix]

If we're still taking about the first table/object experiment, the 5 objects, the room, the table, the players, ect....all exist, regardless of what player 2 can detect. Player 2's detection or lack there of does not make something real or not real. Player 2's perception of reality would be something totally different in this scenario unless he accepts the lists from the 10 observers as truth, then his perception of reality would coincide with the truth of the existence of the objects.

How do you know that the objects exist? What is "truth"? The most popular fact? What if eight out of ten people were blind? Then the truth would be that there are no objects there, and it would be the two people that can see that would be wrong. It's all relative. 1000 years ago there was no such thing as the planet Neptune. According to our relative position, we can't see God, so it's natural to assume He doesn't exist. Until we DO find Him, He won't exist. Until we DO find aliens, they won't exist. Until we DO find Humpty Dumpty, he won't exist. Such is the nature of scientific discovery.