Do you believe in God?

[zzz_pt]

Oh boy- why did I put that one little word in there "foolish" Knowledge is faith or religion to a lot of people. I got forced feed all this evolution and big bang stuff at school and at the time I believed in it. At the time I was agnostic, in high school and even into college. I began looking at things from a different perspective and finding holes in this "science" Where did the elements come from that formed the big bang. If they could form.from nothing- then in effect how? If I evolved from a monkey millions of years ago why are there still monkies in the same state now. The thing is you have "faith" that these theories are true, just as I have faith that God created the world and that Jesus was and is the Son of God. Well sorry if this came out wrong it's 3 AM here time for bed. God Bless!!!

I don't know if I should reply to such amount of nonsense (clearly inserted in your brain with your consent) or should I have pity on you.

The Big Bang theory doesn't give you any explanation for the origin of energy/mass in the singularity stage nor where it came from. You're the one believing that everything came from nothing (or from God... which to a non theist is all the same, since you have no proof for the existence of God).

Monkeys? We didn't evolve from monkeys. And here it cames the fact: If Americans descend from English people, why are there still English people?

Saying Science is a foolish quest while living in the 21th century, typing in a computer on the internet, probably driving a car everyday, etc is quite intriguing.

 

[Scaff]

Oh boy- why did I put that one little word in there "foolish" Knowledge is faith or religion to a lot of people.

I've no idea, but as you did I'm going to reply based on the words you used.

I got forced feed all this evolution and big bang stuff at school and at the time I believed in it. At the time I was agnostic, in high school and even into college. I began looking at things from a different perspective and finding holes in this "science" Where did the elements come from that formed the big bang. If they could form.from nothing- then in effect how?

Holes in science?

What science can't (yet) explain it is quite open about. Its theism that has to answer every question with the same answer (god did it), what is actually wrong with the answer 'we don't yet know'?

You also miss the rather ironic point that the exact same 'problem' exists with god, how did he/she/it come from nothing?

If I evolved from a monkey millions of years ago why are there still monkies in the same state now.

I suggest you get back to school if this is your level of understanding. Never has it been claimed that we evolved from monkeys (well except incorrectly by theists), we share a common ancestor with monkeys, quite a different thing.

The thing is you have "faith" that these theories are true, just as I have faith that God created the world and that Jesus was and is the Son of God. Well sorry if this came out wrong it's 3 AM here time for bed. God Bless!!!

Theory - a word you clearly don't know the actual meaning of. No one has faith in theories (once again an inaccurate claim made by those who don't actually understand the word they are using), I quote:

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

So I give very little credence to your claim to have found 'holes' inn something you clearly don't understand.

 

[Imari]

@Scaff has explained it far more comprehensively than I could, but basically the common usage view of science and the common usage of scientific words like theory, are not what science actually is. Pop culture has a lot to answer for for warping the view of what science actually is.

Do a little reading on how scientific theories are developed, and how scientific knowledge is gained and what "knowing" something means to a scientist, and I think you'll find that it's not so different from how you yourself think.

Short version: A scientist never "knows" anything. All he or she has is a best interpretation of what they have observed to date. A scientist is someone who critically examines evidence before they produce hypotheses (another word that has a specific meaning) on how they work.

Science is, above everything, about discovering what we DON'T know. The most dangerous things are those things we don't know that we don't know. Things that we know we don't know we can work on learning about.

 

[Famine]

I feel that science is a foolish quest by man to explain what God has created.

Are you aware that you typed that on the internet using a computer?

 

[jimipitbull]

Oh boy- why did I put that one little word in there "foolish" Knowledge is faith or religion to a lot of people. I got forced feed all this evolution and big bang stuff at school and at the time I believed in it. At the time I was agnostic, in high school and even into college. I began looking at things from a different perspective and finding holes in this "science" Where did the elements come from that formed the big bang. If they could form.from nothing- then in effect how? If I evolved from a monkey millions of years ago why are there still monkies in the same state now. The thing is you have "faith" that these theories are true, just as I have faith that God created the world and that Jesus was and is the Son of God. Well sorry if this came out wrong it's 3 AM here time for bed. God Bless!!!

Did God create dog? If so, was he/she being lazy in regards to naming conventions, or was he/she displaying a sense of humour?

 

[TenEightyOne]

The thing is you have "faith" that these theories are true, just as I have faith that God created the world

I don't, it's one of the reasons I'm the way I am. I question everything until I see calibrated, empirical proof of a hypothesis. Even things that you yourself "know" are scientifically obvious.

Any experiment or measurement that includes an unproved datum or preconception (ie a 'leap of faith') in its study is, to me, bogus. That's why I've studied the Bibles and the Qu'uran at some length, they carry a huge weight of opinion behind them and so I approached them open mindedly.

There are some historic truths in them, some sensible social advice and, overall, they carry a message of love and mercy. I find the remainder of the "factual" content to require a leap of faith that I cannot make - not even the greatest theological scholars can produce any fact or evidence to support them.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm good with practical science- It's just that not all science can be proven such as the big bang theory and evolution. They can never be proven. As you might see my belief in God as being foolish- I in turn see the big bang and evolution in the same light. I can't show you God anymore than you can show me evolution or the big bang, but reading the new testament can sure open doors for you.

All science is the same. And seeing is not proof. The Big Bang and evolution are easily provable with enough logic and facts.

Oh boy- why did I put that one little word in there "foolish" Knowledge is faith or religion to a lot of people. I got forced feed all this evolution and big bang stuff at school and at the time I believed in it. At the time I was agnostic, in high school and even into college. I began looking at things from a different perspective and finding holes in this "science" Where did the elements come from that formed the big bang. If they could form.from nothing- then in effect how? If I evolved from a monkey millions of years ago why are there still monkies in the same state now. The thing is you have "faith" that these theories are true, just as I have faith that God created the world and that Jesus was and is the Son of God. Well sorry if this came out wrong it's 3 AM here time for bed. God Bless!!!

You didn't find holes. Science doesn't attempt to provide an answer for everything all at once. There are things we don't know. Elements didn't form the big bang, the condensed from the Big Bang (mostly H, He, and a bit of Li) then that became stars which made the rest. Though what you probably meant was where did the energy come from in the Big Bang? Good question, science is still looking. Your evolution question is a bit off too. A monkey didn't turn into a human millions of years ago. A group of primates very slowly experienced genetic changes that were different from the changes some other members of their species underwent. Over a really long time these slow changes, which happen in generational steps and don't continually occur in one organism, build up and the result is humans. Some of the animals that didn't evolve into humans became monkeys instead. Evolution doesn't consume organisms.

No one has faith (or should have faith) in these things either. They're observable. The Big Bang produced background radiation that was predicted to exist before it was found, we know how fusion works and that it powers stars, etc. If you doubt science, you don't have to reach for a book. You can go out and try it.

 

[srmellott]

Ok guys- I get where you are all coming from. Let's just agree to disagree on this subject- which is what I intended from my 2nd to last post with teneightyone but I messed it up, and I accept my fault in that. In no way shape or form did I expect it to balloon the way it did. I never intended to start a firestorm with this- but nor will I not believe in God or Jesus Christ. We can respectfully disagree with each other and please move on.

 

[zzz_pt]

@srmellott

My first posts in this thread were done with the same mindset that you have right now of refusing to not believe in God and Jesus Christ.

But I listen and read with respect and care what my fellow GTP's were saying and everything (at least the most of it) made logic sense and I couldn't present them with facts or respectable evidence of my claims and beliefs.

I then started to question simple things and soon after I was reading history,teology, philosophy and science books fascinated and at the same time very surprised.

Last february I decided to folow truth and leave faith. Faith has no value. I can say that the truth set me free from my chains. I was an evangelical christian (from a baptist church) and I'm now an agnostic atheist.

There are a lot of things that I don't know, but instead of hiding myself behind the bible and behind what my family and church said, I question everything and I'm a more moderated person and less judgemental to other people.

The first time I went out to the streets as a non beliver I experienced one of the most awe inspiring moments in my life. Just seeing every other person/child like a natural brother. No superticious barriers. Just people. Every single one of them with the same value.

And this change also led me to change my political and social views. Particulary in subjects like homossexual marriage / adoption, abortion, etc.

And the good part is that without some of the people here in GTP, I wouldn't question some of the things that I did. GTP was not the most influencial part in the process but sure it made it faster.

The greatest thing is to learn. And sometimes, question our lifes and change our views is priceless. It will give us a much better life. Even if we end in the same place. At least we will be more informed, more mature and more prepared for the future.

ps: I'm sorry for my english.

 

[srmellott]

@srmellott

My first posts in this thread were done with the same mindset that you have right now of refusing to not believe in God and Jesus Christ.

But I listen and read with respect and care what my fellow GTP's were saying and I everything made some logic sense and I couldn't present them with facts or respectable evidence of my claims and beliefs.

I then started to question simple things and soon after I was reading history,teology, philosophy and science books fascinated and at the same time very surprised.

Last february I decided to folow truth and leave faith. Faith is worthless in current worldview. I can say that the truth set me free from my chains. I was an evangelical christian (from a baptist church) and I'm now an agnostic atheist.

There are a lot of things that I don't know, but instead of hiding myself behind the bible and behind what my family and church said, I question everything and I'm a more moderated person and less judgemental to other people.

The first time I went out to the streets as a non beliver I experienced one of the most awe inspiring moments in my life. Just seeing every other person/child like a natural brother. No superticious barriers. Just people. Every single one of them with the same value.

And this change also led me to change my political and social views. Particulary in subjects like homossexual marriage / adoption, abortion, etc.

And the good part is that without some of the people here in GTP, I wouldn't question some of the thing I did. GTP was not the most influencial part in the process but sure it made it faster.

ps: I'm sorry for my english.

I totally understand- and I do have respect for you and any of the other non-religious people who posted on this thread. This is a decision that you and they have made- just as it is the decision to be a believer is for me. In no way did I ever want to step over anybody's beliefs. If I did in my posts I am sorry for that. In saying this to you and everyone who has posted here on this thread in the last few hours- I respect your rights- to believe in what you believe in and all I ask is for you to respect my beliefs as well.

 

[DQuaN]

I totally understand- and I do have respect for you and any of the other non-religious people who posted on this thread. This is a decision that you and they have made- just as it is the decision to be a believer is for me. In no way did I ever want to step over anybody's beliefs. If I did in my posts I am sorry for that. In saying this to you and everyone who has posted here on this thread in the last few hours- I respect your rights- to believe in what you believe in and all I ask is for you to respect my beliefs as well.

Of course we respect your beliefs. Everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want.

Something that slightly frustrates me (and others) however, is that if God ever appeared and revealed himself to us, athiests/scientists would say "Well how about that! We were wrong!". When theists are presented with proof of evolution, big bang, etc, they tend to put their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la, don't care, you can't change my mind".

 

[mistersafeway]

I totally understand- and I do have respect for you and any of the other non-religious people who posted on this thread. This is a decision that you and they have made- just as it is the decision to be a believer is for me. In no way did I ever want to step over anybody's beliefs. If I did in my posts I am sorry for that. In saying this to you and everyone who has posted here on this thread in the last few hours- I respect your rights- to believe in what you believe in and all I ask is for you to respect my beliefs as well.

I think most only had a problem with your views on science, even church leaders rarely say science is all nonsense in the present age, and on a public forum, people most certainly will not let that sort of comment slide.

That being said, yes, I definitely respect your right to believe, I only get annoyed when people actively try to convert from my godless, sinful ways, which you have not done.

Besides, a little sin's good for you.

 

[Azuremen]

In no way did I ever want to step over anybody's beliefs. If I did in my posts I am sorry for that. In saying this to you and everyone who has posted here on this thread in the last few hours- I respect your rights- to believe in what you believe in and all I ask is for you to respect my beliefs as well.

It is more you are condemning something while clearly misunderstanding it by a large amount. It would be on par with me condemning Christianity while not being familiar with at least one version of the Bible or assessing the various historical references and aspects.

 

[Famine]

Ok guys- I get where you are all coming from. Let's just agree to disagree on this subject

No.

Some of the things you stated are misconceptions and misrepresentations so large that they need to be addressed and corrected. "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is wrong on so many levels that it's simply not acceptable for anyone to hold this opinion, be allowed to state it unchecked and keep hold of it on the basis of "agree to disagree".

To put it in religious terms, it's like suggesting that Jesus's execution was justified because he knowingly broke the law and thus Christians worship a convicted criminal. And then saying "Well, agree to disagree" when you're jumped on by adherents...

In no way did I ever want to step over anybody's beliefs. If I did in my posts I am sorry for that. In saying this to you and everyone who has posted here on this thread in the last few hours- I respect your rights- to believe in what you believe in

Evolution is not a belief. Though I'm sure you can believe in it, the fact it's a documented process with overwhelming weight of evidence means belief is simply unnecessary. Evolution is reality.

You're welcome not to believe in it too, but that has as little effect as believing in it does. And, frankly, relegating it to a belief system based on misconceptions you've come up with independently and don't allow to be questioned because it's "only a theory" isn't anywhere close to respect.

and all I ask is for you to respect my beliefs as well.

The believer can be respected for holding belief. The beliefs themselves need not be respected - particularly if they're nonsense.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Famine Thank you for saying what I would say if I could write in english as I write in portuguese. Right on the point. 👍

 

[Touring Mars]

If I evolved from a monkey millions of years ago why are there still monkies in the same state now.

A very common question with a surprisingly simple answer - we didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. Humans share a common ancestor with every species on Earth. The point in time where humans shared a common ancestor with any specific species differs - for example, humans and chimpanzees both evolved from the same species (a common ancestor) that existed around 5 million years ago. Humans, chimps and monkeys all evolved from the same species that existed much further back in time than that - around 30 million years ago. All primates that exist today evolved from a common ancestor that existed further back still, and so on and so on. Go back far enough and you can trace common ancestry between all species on Earth. The idea of universal common descent was initially proposed long before the field of genetics ever existed, but genetics now provides compelling evidence that this idea is indeed correct.

Saying that humans evolved from monkeys is a bit like saying that your entire family descended from your cousin - obviously, that isn't possible and it isn't what evolutionary theory says either. What it does say is that the genetic similarities between you and your cousin did not arise by random chance, nor are they the result of design*, but are due to the simple fact that you and your cousin are biologically related by common descent. Similarly, you and I are also biologically related by common descent - the difference being that our most recent common ancestor existed much longer ago than the most recent common ancestor between you and your cousin (i.e. your grandmother or grandfather) - at some point in time within the last few thousand (or possibly even a few hundred) years, there existed a human being that is a direct ancestor of both of us. (You may not want to believe that, but a simple analysis of our genes could prove it beyond any reasonable doubt). Similarly, genetics proves beyond any reasonable doubt that humans and chimps share common ancestry as well - but that common ancestor existed millions of years ago.

Of course, none of this says anything about the existence of God. There are many theists who accept evolutionary theory for the scientific fact that it is. The problem that some theists have is that evolutionary theory/the theory of common descent does challenge the biblical narrative as described in Genesis - but this ignores the fact that the Bible was never intended to be (and nor can it be expected to be) a scientifically accurate treatise on every subject, including 21st Century biology. I personally don't see the need for conflict between science and belief in God - but I can see why religions and their holy texts conflict with science... the two things, while obviously connected, are very different for me.


* This is a central claim of creationists - that while your genes might make it 'look like' you are related to other primates, they claim that all primates are simply 'designed' using the same building blocks and that genetic similarity is not evidence of actual relatedness by descent. There are BIG problems with this idea though. Firstly, it doesn't disprove evolution anyway. Secondly (and this is something I have a major problem with), it is no different to saying that you cannot infer relatedness between people by genetic comparisons i.e. it might 'look like' you are related to your parent/children/cousins etc., but infact you might not be. This is palpable nonsense, of course. That you possess genes from both your mother and your father is easily explained by sexual reproduction. The competing hypothesis - that you were designed to look like you came from your parents (but you actually didn't) is something I find quite ridiculous and even bordering on offensive... and good luck telling someone their child is not really their child despite the genetic evidence.

 

[SDsnakebutt]

hahaha i tried warning him. Its all good tho. Everyone here at GTPlanet are good enough people that i believe we can move on with no hard feelings. Like @Famine stated, there may need to be some things corrected in case someone was browsing around and came upon this thread. Don't want to give out information that doesn't side with either belief.

I been keeping along with the past post and have a few sincere questions. The following questions are being asked from a neutral standing point. I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to ask certain question , planning to try and say they are wrong. I honestly would just like to know for my own knowledge.

-So based off of this

What science can't (yet) explain it is quite open about. Its theism that has to answer every question with the same answer (god did it), what is actually wrong with the answer 'we don't yet know'?.

Science doesn't attempt to provide an answer for everything all at once. There are things we don't know. Elements didn't form the big bang, the condensed from the Big Bang (mostly H, He, and a bit of Li) then that became stars which made the rest. Though what you probably meant was where did the energy come from in the Big Bang? Good question, science is still looking.

Would someone be able to say the same thing about there Religion or anything at all? Basically, couldn't someone state that Science is still trying to find out if the Bible and Jesus are what some people claim they are? and if yes, does that mean your always open to except both of those as truths but until Scientifically proven you don't believe so?


-Next

A monkey didn't turn into a human millions of years ago. A group of primates very slowly experienced genetic changes that were different from the changes some other members of their species underwent. Over a really long time these slow changes, which happen in generational steps and don't continually occur in one organism, build up and the result is humans. Some of the animals that didn't evolve into humans became monkeys instead. Evolution doesn't consume organisms.

.

Thank you for this bit of information. I havnt herd of Evolution explained in this way. This would make a lot more sense than saying we evolved from monkeys. Thats the only way i have herd people explain it. both people for and against it. .... My question is, Is there any physical evidence to help support this? Like the proof we have for Tadpool to frog, caterpillar to butterfly? and i do understand that its not the same thing.

I have a few more questions but don't have the time right now. So i will just post this for now. And Again, Please understand I'm just curious about the above things i asked. Im not trying to setup a "AW HA, GOTCHA" moment. So even tho i have made my Beliefs very clear, don't take it like I'm trying to find a flaw in your logic. Just wanted to ask you guys cuz you all seem like a intelligent bunch!


@Touring Mars said- "I personally don't see the need for conflict between science and belief in God - but I can see why religions and their holy texts conflict with science... the two things, while obviously connected, are very different for me."

^^^^This!
.

 

[Exorcet]

Would someone be able to say the same thing about there Religion or anything at all? Basically, couldn't someone state that Science is still trying to find out if the Bible and Jesus are what some people claim they are? and if yes, does that mean your always open to except both of those as truths but until Scientifically proven you don't believe so?

You can apply science to the Bible, yes. You can apply it to almost anything. The exception is things that can't be proven wrong. What if someone thought that it rained because there was a person in the clouds poking holes in them, but this cloud person was complete undetectable and was able to create a 100% convincing water cycle to fool anyone looking for this person. That could be true in a sense, but there is no way to test for it. You will only ever find the water cycle sending vapor into the clouds that looks 100% real. In this case, you would say that the water cycle causes rain and not a person in the clouds. Something similar would happen to non falsifiable claims made anywhere else.

Also, note that being "scientifically proven" is a continuous process. Science deals with evidence, and evidence supports or disagrees with theories. You can never really know something or definitively rule something out unless you know absolutely everything. We can't do that, so we do the next best thing and weigh evidence for and against. I'm not a historian, but a man named Jesus walking around preaching 2000 years ago sounds plausible. Someone performing miracles is less plausible, a more realistic explanation given what we know about physics and history is that a real story became an exaggerated myth over time. This doesn't absolutely rule out that Jesus is God, but it does make it seem unlikely to be the case.

Thank you for this bit of information. I havnt herd of Evolution explained in this way. This would make a lot more sense than saying we evolved from monkeys. Thats the only way i have herd people explain it. both people for and against it. .... My question is, Is there any physical evidence to help support this? Like the proof we have for Tadpool to frog, caterpillar to butterfly? and i do understand that its not the same thing.

Famine and Touring Mars can answer that better than I can, and probably will when they check the thread. Evidence for evolution includes genetics and fossils. We can trace genetic similarity between organisms down the evolutionary tree and see what branched from what as time went on. We can also date these branchings with the help of fossils. For example, you will never find a 2 billion year old human fossil. The most modern humans appear in the fossil record only in the last few hundred thousand years. Hominids date back in 1-10's of million of years range and mammals go back to ~200 million years, but not further.

We can also confirm that evolution happens by observing modern life. Experiments like:

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

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

Shows that genetics and reproduction lead to evolution.

 

[SDsnakebutt]

You can apply science to the Bible, yes. You can apply it to almost anything. The exception is things that can't be proven wrong. What if someone thought that it rained because there was a person in the clouds poking holes in them, but this cloud person was complete undetectable and was able to create a 100% convincing water cycle to fool anyone looking for this person. That could be true in a sense, but there is no way to test for it. You will only ever find the water cycle sending vapor into the clouds that looks 100% real. In this case, you would say that the water cycle causes rain and not a person in the clouds. Something similar would happen to non falsifiable claims made anywhere else.

First off, Thank you for taking the time to anwser my Questions. I understand exactly what ur saying. Makes perfect sense. So i guess You could look at things as "this is the correct anwser until further undoubtedly true evidence is brought forward or discovered?"

Kinda like at one point all evidence pointed to the world being flat. At that moment in time, with the limited tools and knowledge, any other guess couldn't really be tested for. So the world was 100% forsure flat. And than as time went on and technology grew, other test (i guess u could say) showed that was incorrect. its actually round. And now at this moment in our time its obviously 100% definitely round. Thats the undebatable answer... until something shows us otherwise. Its A freakin triangle! haha jk on the last part of course. But would you agree with that? Just want to make sure i understood the things you said. Thank you.

As for the evolution question. Im sure you are correct (about them answering). I'm looking forward to waking up 2mrw and seeing what one of them have posted.

 

[orimarc]

You could look at things as "this is the correct anwser until further undoubtedly true evidence is brought forward or discovered?"

More or less. I would say it's more like "this is probably the closest thing to the correct anwser until further undoubtedly true evidence is brought forward or discovered".

 

[mistersafeway]

First off, Thank you for taking the time to anwser my Questions. I understand exactly what ur saying. Makes perfect sense. So i guess You could look at things as "this is the correct anwser until further undoubtedly true evidence is brought forward or discovered?"

Kinda like at one point all evidence pointed to the world being flat. At that moment in time, with the limited tools and knowledge, any other guess couldn't really be tested for. So the world was 100% forsure flat. And than as time went on and technology grew, other test (i guess u could say) showed that was incorrect. its actually round. And now at this moment in our time its obviously 100% definitely round. Thats the undebatable answer... until something shows us otherwise. Its A freakin triangle! haha jk on the last part of course. But would you agree with that? Just want to make sure i understood the things you said. Thank you.

As for the evolution question. Im sure you are correct (about them answering). I'm looking forward to waking up 2mrw and seeing what one of them have posted.

One of the ancient civilisations (Greece?) proved that the earth was round a long, long time ago, using nothing but slaves/servants, the "accepted truth" that people in the middle ages thought Earth was flat is untrue.

 

[Imari]

Kinda like at one point all evidence pointed to the world being flat. At that moment in time, with the limited tools and knowledge, any other guess couldn't really be tested for. So the world was 100% forsure flat.

Nobody has thought that the world was flat since they had boats that were able to go more than a little bit away from land, and it was observed that they disappear from the bottom up. There's an easy and obvious explanation for that, and it fits in nicely with the observation that all other celestial bodies that are visible with the naked eye are also round.

You'd be surprised the sort of things you can test with very rudimentary equipment, if you know what you're doing. You'd also be surprised at just how much those at the forefront of what we would now call science knew a thousand or even two thousand years ago.

 

[Touring Mars]

My question is, Is there any physical evidence to help support this? Like the proof we have for Tadpool to frog, caterpillar to butterfly? and i do understand that its not the same thing

All I would add to what Exorcet has already said (genetics and the fossil record) is comparative biology - the comparison of living organisms and their various bits e.g. bones, organs, their shape, size, relative arrangement and function etc..

The original ideas about evolution date back to long before Darwin - and long before genetics (or even fossils) were known about or studied. The first people to ever see great apes would probably have drawn the same conclusions that most people do today, which is that they are much more human-like than other animals. Similarly, chickens and turkeys are much more like each other than chickens or turkeys are to humans etc. - and that is just on a very superficial level (e.g. just on the basis of what the whole organism looks like.) Similar comparisons can be made right across the living world, and not just on a superficial level, but on a very detailed analysis of every aspect of living organisms, such as the number, shape, structure, size and relative arrangement of bones and organs etc. You and I would struggle to identify a human heart from a chimpanzee heart - or the leg bone of a cat from the leg bone of a dog - but detailed analyses of these things can and has been done, and the similarity of one species to another can be quantified/defined to a very high degree before we even get started on genetics, which can be thought of as comparative biology on the molecular level.

Comparative biology (as well as the study of fossils) formed the basis for the idea that relatedness between different species was a possibility, and modern genetics has essentially provided the proof that the inferences of relatedness between species (made on the basis of comparative biology and the fossil record) are indeed correct - the patterns of relatedness predicted by comparative biology very closely resemble the patterns of relatedness inferred from genetics. Geology, paleontology and genetics can also add another crucial dimension - time. Once again, the idea that present day species shared common ancestry millions of years ago predates the advent of genetics - but genetics now allows us to make very good estimates as to when any two species shared a common ancestor.

Taken together, comparative biology, the fossil record and modern genetics provide a mountain of physical evidence from which conclusions can be drawn. They have been used time and time again to test ideas, and the available evidence has been used to build robust theories (over-arching explanations that account for all the evidence) as well as to identify and weed out incorrect ideas. This latter point - the ability to reject incorrect ideas - is the true power of the scientific method. Even on a very simple and intuitive level, who can one expect to ever known the truth if you do not have any method to establish that your ideas might be wrong?

 

[niky]

I've said this before, but it's interesting in the study of human development, neuroanatomy and anatomy (I once, almost, became a medical practitioner), that many of the features present in babies only make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

Case in point... the plantar grasp reflex.

The plantar grasp reflex, is one wherein a child's toes curl in reaction to the light stroking of the sole of the foot. Along with the palmar grasp, where the fingers curl and grip when the palm is stroked, this allowed young primates to cling to their mothers' fur. Human mothers have no fur, and human toes are too short to grasp anything, so this reflex makes no sense for humans. Heck, even the palmar grasp... which is almost strong enough to be useful... has no function, since the babies' hands are too small to grip their mothers' skin or limbs... and there's still not enough fur on human females for them to hold on to.

Then there's goose bumps, where being scared raises the hair on your body... all the better to puff you up and make you look bigger than you really are to potential enemies... well... it works for cats... doesn't work much for us. And the vestigial nictitating membrane... that pink membrane on the inside corner of our eyes... that no longer actually expands to cover the eye.

The human body is an amazing thing. And there's lots to discover about it if you have an open mind and no preconceptions.

 

[Dotini]

...time and time again to test ideas, and the available evidence has been used to build robust theories (over-arching explanations that account for all the evidence) as well as to identify and weed out incorrect ideas. This latter point - the ability to reject incorrect ideas - is the true power of the scientific method. Even on a very simple and intuitive level, who can one expect to ever known the truth if you do not have any method to establish that your ideas might be wrong?

That "the truth" should be the only or even the best criterion for the beliefs, policies and practices of humans is highly debatable. Time and time again we avoid or discard ugly and brutal truths for lies which are more beautiful, useful or necessary.

 

[Danoff]

Human mothers have no fur

...these days. That wasn't the case in the 70s.

 

[BobK]

It should be mentioned that along with the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, there is not one single scrap of solid evidence against it. If there were the theory would have to be modified to accommodate the evidence, or discarded altogether. That's part of how the scientific method works.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...these days. That wasn't the case in the 70s.

I'm not alone in missing the cultured transition of the early 80s, surely?

 

[SDsnakebutt]

@Imari and @mistersafeway - Hey thank you for both of your responses. Looks like i should have found a better example. I wasn't necessarily stating the world being flat as what i thought. I was just trying to quickly give a example of something we thought we knew for sure in the past but as time went on realized we were wrong. I will make sure to use a different example next time tho. thx

 

[niky]

I'm not alone in missing the cultured transition of the early 80s, surely?

I don't think anybody misses pit hair. Then again, the bald... errh... you know... just seems so...

And stubble hurts.