Bias in your belief.

but was it responsible for our creation as a species?

No , it is not responsible itself . But the evolutionary struggle for survival is included , it explaines our ontological status , as long as nobody else on this planet can come up with a better method to understand how over this period of time a human has become from what became him . And that is where I agree with Cris , it is a matter of approach , we obviously didnt pop up evolution has occured , a theory simply provides the methodics .

I mean we are obviously not created by some deity , are we ?
I didnt think so .......

Hey razz , I assume you understood why religious debates can be usefull ?
 
Razz,
If evolution did not help in our development then explain how we have only 2% genetic difference between us and some apes.
 
Razz,

What, feeling slightly hostile in that last post, were you?

Cris your arguement is biased pmsl..
Asserting I am biased without showing how doesn’t help your case.

you always have this attitude like your smarter than everyone else on the forum.....
I find that at my advanced age of 50 I tend to be correct more often than I am wrong, and I know I am smarter than some members here, but I also know there are many members here who are much smarter than me. I think you may be mistaking my assertiveness for arrogance.

youve been argueing with me over a dictionaries definition because you know better than a dictionary,
Many dictionaries are not 100% correct. Are you assuming dictionaries are infallible?

but if you were so intelligent you would have seen there was actually a question in this thread which no one, including you, seems to have addressed properly! ..........WHY?
But I’m not particularly intelligent, just smarter than some but less able than others.

Why what?

are you scared?
Scared of what?

Instead and as per bloody usual you have all gone off on some twisted tangent and attacked other issues like the evolution theory without answering my questions.
..............Cant beat the question then attack something else to divert attention.
Oops, thought the definitions you posted were somehow relevant, silly mistake.

Regardless of definitions given... and when your finished playing games......
But life is fun.

the questions are: .... Why waste your time argueing over religion ? its obviously pointless! People believe what people believe.....
Until they change their minds; and many do. It is healthy that people argue and debate. While many might not admit to a change of mind for fear of losing face, many do change their minds and use that new perspective elsewhere. I believe religion is largely a bad thing and I would like others to see my perspective and show me where I might be wrong, or give me support. Either way the debate has value since it makes one focus on the issues and attempt to comprehend an alternative viewpoint or focus more on one’s own position. In the end the hope is that truth will emerge.

take the catholics as one example.... IF.. God and the bible were suddenly proven to be a fake 100% without dispute... Would catholics stop being cathlolics? or would many just continue worshipping their beliefs anyway ?
I do not believe all Catholics are stupid and I am optimistic that most people faced with undisputable evidence would be reasonable.

But ultimately, whether it is religion or not, anything controversial and where emotions can run high, always presents a good opportunity to enjoy an argument. I.e. the fun is not being right or wrong but the enjoyment of the battle.
 
beauty,

yes evolotion is partical fact but still part theory.
Close. Evolution is fully fact, but many of the processes involved are still the subject of theory.

I.e. evolution consists of both facts and theories.

Think of a room with a box. You leave and re-enter but find the box is now in a different position. You know the box has been moved (fact), but you don't know how so you must form theories to answer the question.
 
people are biased by their own ego, education, experience etc.

Thats a fact!

Many strongly religious and anti-religious people will never change their minds no matter what they are shown.
Thats another fact.

Being drawn to accept one ideal, theory or educated notion over another regardless of reason is still a bias.

Evolution has not been proven to be the making of man nor has creation been proven to be the answer either...
For all you lot know some alien race took a monkey diced and spliced the dna then sat back to watch the show.
Hell what about the matrix theory... your life doesnt exist .. your a program that thinks its alive.
You all forget there are more theories about how we began than just evolution and christian creation.

The bible is utter bullshit in my opinion.. so yes if pushed... evolution does make more sense to me, and yes evolution did take place on this planet but did we humans evolve or were we created? or.... was it all something none of you have even thought of? were we placed here? Open your minds people.


...( RazZ in best yoda voice to Cris : " hmmmm ... always reply you must .. much effort you show...hmmmm.. Jedi knight you will be" )
:bugeye:
 
Re: people are biased by their own ego, education, experience etc.

Originally posted by razz
Many strongly religious and anti-religious people will never change their minds no matter what they are shown.
Assuming that the mind is not damaged in some way, you can always change someone's mind... even you have time and knowledge

Being drawn to accept one ideal, theory or educated notion over another regardless of reason is still a bias.

That is the crux... regardless of reason... many (if not most) theists are reasonable. The challenge is to convience them to look at religion with reason.

Evolution has not been proven to be the making of man nor has creation been proven to be the answer either...

True, but evolution in itself has been proven on other species. It can be rightly assumed that it also applies to us.

Hell what about the matrix theory... your life doesnt exist .. your a program that thinks its alive.

Reality is observation. In this theory, you can not observe whatever is outside the matrix. Therefore you can not describe it. To simply say that a reality exists above this one is meaningless if we can never interact/observe it.

was it all something none of you have even thought of? were we placed here? Open your minds people.

There are an infinite number of ways we could have 'got here'. Evolution is the only one I know of that has any real evidence. (I'm not counting religious documents and myths as 'evidence')
 
The bible is utter bullshit in my opinion..

Im sure you havent read it but heard of it through Christians , and if you had Im sure you understood it the way Christians understand it , and based on that refuted the book .

You shouldnt refute words because peoples fail to coherent sentences out of them .
 
Jihad_AlifLamLamHah

......and you shouldnt assume anything it just makes an ASS out of U and ME. lol

I know the bible on my own terms..... i grew up in a very religious house, as a teenager i began asking many questions after finding many mistakes in the bible... the more I learnt the more I realised the nature of man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth...especially with something so apparently important as the bible...... but hey.. even famous free thinkers from our past like galileo had issue with the bible so i soon learned i was not alone.

You bible lovers amaze me... so self righteous yet not one of you headstrong little fruitcakes can honestly answer any of my questions or any other friggen thread on these forums without crapping on with bullshit and pasteing crap you twist to mean anything you bloody feel like at that given moment...not one of you bible bashing morons follow the exact commandments and instruction your bible delivers upon you yet you sit there and point fingers,.... i say clean your house b4 you start on mine........

Uno im not the dumb prick you dickheads make me out to be simply because im not religious... so maybe if one of your church nutts gave some decent answers that were reasonable i may change my mind about things i currently believe. .. until that happens .. kiss my ass, enjoy sciforums and dont mind me having an opinion or two of my own just like you pushy little church goers seem to so willingly splatter upon these threads.

Enjoy life .. live it how the hell you like... but dont push ideas on me until you know the facts with proof.

yep im bored to all F@#K with wankers in the religious forums here who have nothing new to say, avoid answering direct questions and hide behind nothing more than a piss ass hand me down book with thousands of reprinted, translated texts, highlighted with opinions and revised for the new generations..

When you show me proof of God.. I'll show you an apology.

btw: have a lovely day :D
 
......and you shouldnt assume anything it just makes an ASS out of U and ME. lol

Obviously my assumption was correct , your understanding of the bible is a Christian understanding of the bible .

When you show me proof of God.. I'll show you an apology.

There is no God by your Christian definition , so proving it might be a bit difficult .

But I pointed out already you have serious definition-issues , perhaps you can open your mind for concepts instead of waving around dictionary's claming you want to see what says in there , its not happening and you know it .

PS : Im not religious either , I just think scripture bashing is quite retarded , also explained before (You shouldnt refute words because peoples fail to make coherent sentences out of them )
Als Im not avoiding any answers , its you who's avoiding everything bro

:rolleyes:
 
beautyisonlyskindeep-

no not really, see heres the thing yes the do "think" that we have evolved but why did some monkeys stay and others grew on? And why haven't we become a smarter, and more intelligent species??? And as some like to believe in Aliens are a smarter species, but yet we don't even have proof except more "therorys" on how they became... Evolotion might be half proven but none of this matters it's off the point, just like I was trying to say in my other post.

As had been pointed out, you dont know what you are talking about, its ok, I am not trying to ridicule you in any way, I am trying to point it out that maybe you should know the subject to which you are arguing against.

And why haven't we become a smarter, and more intelligent species???

Actually we have. We have been able to pass on written texts to future generations, which will allow for information to be easily attained and to be grown upon quite rapidly.

Look at humans even as short as 3 hundred years ago. We have the same brain makeup as that time period, but we can generally conclude that humans are typically more knowledgeable and we can even argue, more intelligent in today's times.
 
Mors-

Well, the reason why some monkeys stayed and others grew on is because the was tectonic activity and they got sepperated by the mountans. Some were still living in the forest (today's apes), but some were living in the newly created plane. Where natural selection occured and the most fit to survive did ( the upright apes).

Yes, good response.

Let me elaborate on this.

Thousands of years ago a catastrophic event of some sort had happened, and as a result, the land which was primarily covered by forests, was now turned to mostly flatlands.

Now, the primates that had developed bipedalism, were better adapted to this new enviornment, thus the excelerated growth that they experienced. The bipedal and non-bipedal primates diverged paths and took up different patterns of growth.

Bipedalim was the main key to our superiority on this planet. A common misconception, is that it was a larger brain. But bipedalism allowed the primates to carry various items and as a result they adapted in various new and exciting ways. This lead up to a larger brain in some primate species.

Mostly when one thinks of evolutionary change, what comes to mind is gradual change. But the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium has gained intellectual ground.

According to this idea, new species usually do not arise within the main body of a population, because the genetic exchange between organisms rapidly swamps any new variations. Instead, small subpopulations which are genetically isolated from the main population are more likely to change, because an evolutionary novelty has a much better chance of dominating a small population than a large one.

If a species isolation is long enough, they become so genetically different that when they are reintroduced or reinvade their original homeland (become sympatric), they can no longer interbreed with the ancestors; they have become a new species. This new species may die out quickly, or it may drive its ancestor to extinction, or both may persist side-by-side, typically by exploiting slightly different ecological niches. In paleontological terms, the allopatric speciation model predicts that species arise rapidly (a few hundred to a thousand years, but instantaneous in a geological sense) on the periphery of their range (where they are rarely fossilized). It predicts that the main population (most likely to be fossilized) will show little or no change, but will be suddenly invaded by new species with no apparent transitions between them.
 
big words, small brain

theres still the question of why they haven't grown on even in thier enviorment, and just because you use "big" words yet don't know how to spell mountains gives me only the proof what you believe could be and most likely be wrong.
 
beautyisonlyskindeep-

and just because you use "big" words yet don't know how to spell mountains gives me only the proof what you believe could be and most likely be wrong.

I assume you are directing this towards Mors, am I correct in that assumption.

On Mors behalf, I can guarantee that he knows how to spell mountains, it was a spelling mistake, no big deal.
 
on behalf...

on my behalf I don't care. You pull big words out of no where unless you went and looked it up, like a loser, but I don't know you and it could be possible you are, but sense I don't know you I'll give you that much credit. I'm off the subject so stop talking to me I'm tired of getting the emails.
 
beautyisonlyskindeep-

I still dont know who you are referring to, but that is irrevelant.

You pull big words out of no where unless you went and looked it up, like a loser

Dont be a stupid dickhead. I would rather hear facts and documented findings than somebody's personal rantings. I think everyone else would also.
 
Beauty

Originally posted by beautyisonlyskindeep
.... we have evolved but why did some monkeys stay and others grew on? And why haven't we become a smarter, and more intelligent species???

Hi! I just wanted to clear a couple things up,
1) A common mistake made when contemplating evolution is the belief that the process actually leads somewhere. ie: human intelligence.
2) A second mistaken belief is that humans are more evolved than say an ant. We’re not. Evolution isn’t a ladder with humans on the top.
Anyhow, when I saw your post I was thinking about early humans and how they always have perfect teeth. It isn’t until agriculture that we see humans with bad teeth. So as agriculture advanced and humans began to shift from nomadic living to settlements there was a change in the selective pressures resulting in bad teeth. This is an example of humans evolving to have bad teeth from perfect teeth. So you asked why haven't we become smarter? Well there are no selective pressures for humans to evolve more smartness (although I must confess I’m not sure what smarter is exactly).
Hope that helps.
MII
 
Back
Top