Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 8, 2007 Veteran Share Posted April 8, 2007 I am a complete proponant of the interbreeding theory as well as the multi region so this doesn't bother me in the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snyper Posted April 8, 2007 Author Share Posted April 8, 2007 about the theory of evolution, well the one thing that i find really hard to understand is how can anyone not accept it? Because its not in The Good Book. And life as we know it is only in accordance with the good book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 about the theory of evolution, well the one thing that i find really hard to understand is how can anyone not accept it? Well, I don't think christians believe in evolution of man (from apes or ancestors of apes) and I doubt that many of the other monotheistic or even non monotheistic religions have teachings concerning this, so from this, we can gather that WELL OVER half or even near three quarters of the world do not accept this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 How many people throughout the world accept evolution: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bi...s/21329204.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 How many people throughout the world accept evolution: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bi...s/21329204.html Not really throughout the world if its only polled 35 countries out of over 240. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takecare Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Well, I don't think christians believe in evolution of man (from apes or ancestors of apes) and I doubt that many of the other monotheistic or even non monotheistic religions have teachings concerning this, so from this, we can gather that WELL OVER half or even near three quarters of the world do not accept this. i know that religious people tend not to believe in the theory of evolution, i'm just trying to say that people with some education at this level do believe in this theory, because it makes sense (and i'm not saying that creationism makes no sense). everyone has the right to believe what he/she wants, but there are some things that are more reasonable than others, and we, as human beings (reasonable animals) prefer this rational thinking (i guess)... so... bottom line, accept science. church always tries to discredit (hope this is the word i'm looking for) science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted April 8, 2007 Veteran Share Posted April 8, 2007 Well, I don't think christians believe in evolution of man (from apes or ancestors of apes) and I doubt that many of the other monotheistic or even non monotheistic religions have teachings concerning this, so from this, we can gather that WELL OVER half or even near three quarters of the world do not accept this. It shouldn't have anything to do with religion. And if well over half of humans reject reality, we have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 i know that religious people tend not to believe in the theory of evolution, i'm just trying to say that people with some education at this level do believe in this theory, because it makes sense (and i'm not saying that creationism makes no sense). everyone has the right to believe what he/she wants, but there are some things that are more reasonable than others, and we, as human beings (reasonable animals) prefer this rational thinking (i guess)...so... bottom line, accept science. church always tries to discredit (hope this is the word i'm looking for) science. People have their own views on things. Just because they dont correspond with your own, it don't make them any less valid. If you think that evolution occurred in our species and use shapes of ape skulls to show it, so be it. If people have belief in God and say that man was made by God and woman from a rib of the man, and have their respective books to show this, so be it. It shouldn't have anything to do with religion.And if well over half of humans reject reality, we have a problem. I didnt say that it did have to do with it. I just said that mainstream followers do not believe in evolution. No, if you have a hard time accepting other people's beliefs, you have a problem. Reality? Show me an ape turning into man, and then that will be reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takecare Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 People have their own views on things. Just because they dont correspond with your own, it don't make them any less valid. If you think that evolution occurred in our species and use shapes of ape skulls to show it, so be it. If people have belief in God and say that man was made by God and woman from a rib of the man, and have their respective books to show this, so be it.I didnt say that it did have to do with it. I just said that mainstream followers do not believe in evolution. No, if you have a hard time accepting other people's beliefs, you have a problem. Reality? Show me an ape turning into man, and then that will be reality. i accept everyone's views, its not about corresponding with mine... i talked about rationality, different things. you want me to show you an ape turning into a man? then you show me god (and no, that crap about god is everywhere you look, in the trees, in the rivers and stuff doesn't count)... show me life after death... explain god to me (don't say its just about faith)... if you want to discuss things this way perhaps you should reconsider your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted April 9, 2007 Veteran Share Posted April 9, 2007 ...I didnt say that it did have to do with it. I just said that mainstream followers do not believe in evolution. No, if you have a hard time accepting other people's beliefs, you have a problem. Reality? Show me an ape turning into man, and then that will be reality. Beliefs have nothing to do with it. (just because somebody believes that gravity doesn't exist, doesn't mean that they should be allowed to jump off buildings) And yes, reality, it's like rejecting that gravity exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robgig1088 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 It seems that some people on this forum dont understand that THEORY is HIGHER than law. Law simply states that it works (like the LAW of gravity.) We don't fully understand it but we know that its there and we accept that. THEORY states that we know it works and we have a good idea of HOW it works. Like the theory of evolution. We know it happened and we know the steps, we're just filling in the details. For a better explanation, Wikipedia answers: Theory and Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 i accept everyone's views, its not about corresponding with mine... i talked about rationality, different things.you want me to show you an ape turning into a man? then you show me god (and no, that crap about god is everywhere you look, in the trees, in the rivers and stuff doesn't count)... show me life after death... explain god to me (don't say its just about faith)... if you want to discuss things this way perhaps you should reconsider your position. So its not easy proving evolution to me, just as it would be difficult to prove the existence of God to you. Well not that hard, but you need to keep an open mind. If you want me to talk to you about God, catch me on MSN-M. This is not the place for it. It seems that some people on this forum dont understand that THEORY is HIGHER than law. Law simply states that it works (like the LAW of gravity.) We don't fully understand it but we know that its there and we accept that. THEORY states that we know it works and we have a good idea of HOW it works. Like the theory of evolution. We know it happened and we know the steps, we're just filling in the details. For a better explanation, Wikipedia answers: Theory and Law I think you dont understand that LAW is higher than THEORY. It is the THEORY of gravity, not law. Law is ultimate because we know that it IS that way. With theory, it MAYBE that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted April 9, 2007 Veteran Share Posted April 9, 2007 No, they are different things. laws are pretty much unchanging statements (e.g. e=mc2 won't suddenly become e=mc3 one day), theories explain things. Again, nothing is 100% certain (it's a good thing actually, if it was unchanging we would learn nothing), but theories are up around 99%+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad_onion Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 science is meant to be discussed and improved over time the fact that it can change as the things around it change is what makes it such an amazing tool, i welcome people to discuss other possible theories concerning human evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 It doesn't matter what the term theory means, until it is not FACT or LAW of evolution, it is still a THEORY. There is nothing which dictates that a better theory cannot be brought forward. If it does, it will either alter all the tests currently done, or throw out the current theory completely. Yeah, but it's the theory of "evolution", not the theory of "why we're here". That's what you all fail to understand. A better "theory" of gravity may one day come along, but it's not going to say gravity doesn't exist. It will simply revise our understanding of how it works. Likewise, a better theory of evolution may come along, but it's not going to say that evolution doesn't occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I think you dont understand that LAW is higher than THEORY. It is the THEORY of gravity, not law. Law is ultimate because we know that it IS that way. With theory, it MAYBE that way. You should read up, starting with the links provided to you. In general, a law states the "what", and a theory explains the "how". The law of gravity states that there is an attractive force between two bodies of mass. The theory of gravity explains how that attractive force works. Which is "higher" may be debatable, depending upon the definition of "higher", but the theory is certainly the more complex of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Yeah, but it's the theory of "evolution", not the theory of "why we're here". That's what you all fail to understand.A better "theory" of gravity may one day come along, but it's not going to say gravity doesn't exist. It will simply revise our understanding of how it works. Likewise, a better theory of evolution may come along, but it's not going to say that evolution doesn't occur. Evolution, is not "why we're here" but "how we are here". With gravity, there maybe nothing that comes which says that it is not true. But, all we need are a couple of skulls to be found predating a few thousand years, and the theory of evolution of man is going to be blown out of the water. If this happens, not only will it alter the way we think about how we got here, it would also abolish this theory. If you people keep comparing our skulls with ones of apes, and keep coming to some proposterous conclusion about us being related to them, you will only show how foolish this looks. You should read up, starting with the links provided to you.In general, a law states the "what", and a theory explains the "how". The law of gravity states that there is an attractive force between two bodies of mass. The theory of gravity explains how that attractive force works. Which is "higher" may be debatable, depending upon the definition of "higher", but the theory is certainly the more complex of the two. If this is true, and that the law of gravity states the facts, why is there no LAW of evolution (of man) yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Evolution, is not "why we're here" but "how we are here".With gravity, there maybe nothing that comes which says that it is not true. Ok. But my point was this. The theory of evolution doesn't set out to describe how we're here, it's set out to describe and explain the process of evolution. That man is here is a byproduct of this explanation, not its central tenet. But, all we need are a couple of skulls to be found predating a few thousand years, and the theory of evolution of man is going to be blown out of the water. If this happens, not only will it alter the way we think about how we got here, it would also abolish this theory. If you people keep comparing our skulls with ones of apes, and keep coming to some proposterous conclusion about us being related to them, you will only show how foolish this looks. I totally agree, as would any scientist on this planet. However, they'd also agree that the chances of finding such evidence are only marginally higher than those of letting go of a basketball and having it fall 'up'. You have to understand that evolution, as a general principle, is substantiated by practically every single field of science. Could the evolutionary "tree" get moved around with time, as new theories develop and new evidence comes in? Of course. Will evidence come along that shows that man didn't evolve from anything? Ridiculously unlikely. If this is true, and that the law of gravity states the facts, why is there no LAW of evolution (of man) yet? Because laws are generally stated as formulas or mathematical equations, and in biology, nothing is that simple. For example, the law of gravity is written as: F=G*m1*m2/d^2 This equation works to a high enough degree of accuracy in a high enough degree of cases that it's been deemed a 'law'. it's a general set of rules that pertain to the largest set of circumstances. In biology, there is no such single formula or equation to define the process of evolution. Hence, no "law of evolution". It's not as simple as saying "evolution occurs". while this is the case, there's no way to easily encapsulate that statement in a scientific way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Will evidence come along that shows that man didn't evolve from anything? Ridiculously unlikely. Well, some people could argue that they have evidence right now, and have had for a very long time, that man didn't evolve from anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well, some people could argue that they have evidence right now, and have had for a very long time, that man didn't evolve from anything. Examples? The only thing I could think of that would be considered evidence against man's evolution from lower animals would be some feature of human biology for which a precursor cannot be found anywhere in any of man's descendents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) Examples?The only thing I could think of that would be considered evidence against man's evolution from lower animals would be some feature of human biology for which a precursor cannot be found anywhere in any of man's descendents. 016.004 He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! 018.037 His companion said to him, in the course of the argument with him: "Dost thou deny Him Who created thee out of dust, then out of a sperm-drop, then fashioned thee into a man? 022.005 O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much), and (further), thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs). Edited April 10, 2007 by ZAnwar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 And, to add, rather than humans coming from apes, it was the other way round; Apes came from humans. 002.065 And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." 005.060 Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 You've just posted scripture as evidence against a scientific theory. That officially ends this debate. Good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takecare Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 But, all we need are a couple of skulls to be found predating a few thousand years, and the theory of evolution of man is going to be blown out of the water. If this happens, not only will it alter the way we think about how we got here, it would also abolish this theory. If you people keep comparing our skulls with ones of apes, and keep coming to some proposterous conclusion about us being related to them, you will only show how foolish this looks.If this is true, and that the law of gravity states the facts, why is there no LAW of evolution (of man) yet? compare skulls? do you even know why skulls look so similar? do you know what is dna? if you just think about it, and research a little bit (it really seems you need it) you'd come to the conclusion that skulls are not the only thing we have in common with other animals, that too points to the idea that we and other animals evolved from one being or a group of some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 compare skulls? do you even know why skulls look so similar? do you know what is dna? if you just think about it, and research a little bit (it really seems you need it) you'd come to the conclusion that skulls are not the only thing we have in common with other animals, that too points to the idea that we and other animals evolved from one being or a group of some. The idea that we (humans) evolved from apes AND dogs, rats and chickens (among other things) is truly funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts