rem

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 2,514 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by rem

• 
  55

  Monkey trial

  by moman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it seems this whole debate, (creation v/s evolution) iz coming to the fore again, along with (religion v/s state) debate.

  my sister iz a producer for pbs & haz a documentary coming up on the scopes or (monkey trial), & i think little haz changed.. i am non-religious, but i can't help laughing when arguements are made claiming man & monkeys share common ansesters, although a few individuals on my wifes side make me wonder.

  i am not saying, i have the answers, but man iz just so radicaly different from animals!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  I think it's clear for all here to see that the fundies on this board who reject evolution are completely ignorant.

  Escargot - here's a clue: Neanderthals are not apes. You are so clueless that you can't even understand that articles you use to prove your case actually do the opposite! And even worse, we've brought it to your attention that your article doesn't support your claim and you can't even comprehend why. So sad.

  Noman - I suppose you don't believe in all that pesky DNA evidence that lawyers use to prove identity and paternity. Do you think the rules for DNA just change because you don't feel like being related to an ape? I suppose you were on OJ's jury. LOL

  At least the lurkers here can see who have the facts and who are speaking from ignorance.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  55

  Monkey trial

  by moman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it seems this whole debate, (creation v/s evolution) iz coming to the fore again, along with (religion v/s state) debate.

  my sister iz a producer for pbs & haz a documentary coming up on the scopes or (monkey trial), & i think little haz changed.. i am non-religious, but i can't help laughing when arguements are made claiming man & monkeys share common ansesters, although a few individuals on my wifes side make me wonder.

  i am not saying, i have the answers, but man iz just so radicaly different from animals!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Escargot,

  Yes, Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Please provide a cite for the article you mention. We share over 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees - that is a fact - so it is impossible to say we are not related to any animals on this planet. Where did you get your information?

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Sleepy,

  Cool - I think we both understand each other better. What you just said is exactly what I was trying to say, but you said it a lot better.

  I was trying to show what worth other conceptually possible scenarios really have when weighing the evidence. When it comes down to it, there could be an infinite number of alternate scenarios, but are they really all of the same worth?

  When you weigh the evidence, you see that the worth of other explanations doesn't match the explanation of evolution through natural selection because it does not rely on external agents that are not proven to exist. (That's why I broght in the argument of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is one of infinity scenarios).

  You are correct that DNA errors do not conclusively prove evolution without an external agent, but they do not contradict it. And they even seem to support it because it strongly suggests related ancestry that has no need for an external agent. But with all of the other evidence in concert, there really is no question of the validity of evolution over special creation or even a creator tinkering with evolution over the aeons.

  Now if there were evidence of some higher creator, whether it be god, a space alien, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or whatever, then other scenarios may be more worthwhile to explore.

  Just my thoughts,

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Sleepy,

  Then do you have another theory that doesn't presuppose a creator? You most assuredly did pressupose a creator with the alternate theory you proposed. I'm not saying that you believe or disbelieve in a creator, I'm just saying that the argument that you put forward presupposed a creator, and we both know that there is no evidence for a creator. At least not yet.

  You could have said that Ivisible Pink Unicorns could have built life in a way which left the DNA the way it was. In that case you would be presupposing an Invisible Pink Unicorn for your argument. There is no evidence for an Invisible Pink Unicorn, just as there is no evidence for a creator god.

  I'm sorry if I came accross the wrong way. I'm not trying to say that you are putting forward the god theory as the best theory, I'm just saying that there is a flaw in that particualr theory you brought up (a creator is necessary for it to work). Because of that flaw, I see no reason to believe it as a possibility.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  55

  Monkey trial

  by moman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it seems this whole debate, (creation v/s evolution) iz coming to the fore again, along with (religion v/s state) debate.

  my sister iz a producer for pbs & haz a documentary coming up on the scopes or (monkey trial), & i think little haz changed.. i am non-religious, but i can't help laughing when arguements are made claiming man & monkeys share common ansesters, although a few individuals on my wifes side make me wonder.

  i am not saying, i have the answers, but man iz just so radicaly different from animals!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  I can't help laughing when arguements are made claiming man & monkeys share common ansesters

  I can't help laughing at common misconceptions. I suppose you could say that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, but that's pretty far removed. We do share a common ancestor with the geat apes, such as Chimpanzees. I'm sure you understand the difference between an ape and a monkey. Maybe not.

  I'm not saying evolution iz unfactual

  So do you make it a habit to laugh at facts? There is no question that we share our ancestry with apes. Just because it doesn't make you feel good doesn't mean it isn't true.

  Regarding your comment about how the earth differs from other planets, perhaps you've never considered the weak anthropic principle?

  rem, who wonders if man's mental capacity really 'iz' much different than animals LOL

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Sleepy,

  Your argument presupposes a creator, in which there is no evidence. Why would you go down a road supposing a theory that requires an unknown creator? If there were evidence for a creator, then your theory might have some merit. Otherwise the reasoning is circular: The DNA suggest a creator because if there were a creator then it could have left the DNA in the state that we see it today.

  There are a lot of "could be" scenarios, but there are only so many that have evidence backing them. Occam's razor - don't go adding extraneous variables - especially ones without evidence - that only complicate the theory and make it more likely to be wrong.

  Also, I'm not so sure that the human brain is so much qualitively different than other animals. It's more quantitively different - especially from higher apes. To me, this suggests that the speed of human brain evolution is not so much of a problem since new features were not necessarily being introduced - existing features were being enhanced.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Marvin,

  The inanimate producing life would have to be observed in a setting outside the reach of anything living for it to be proved. This is tough standard. But if it is true then it will one day be observed. If evolution is true, how could it be otherwise?

  I hate to keep laboring this point, but it is key to understanding the theory of Evolution.

  What you really meant to say (but you didn't know it) was:

  'If abiogenesis is true, how could it be otherwise?'

  Evolution does not talk about life from non-life. Now do you still have an issue with Evolution? I think you really have an issue with abiogenesis. Evolution is completely compatible with your theistic philosophy.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  4

  To JanH re: Evolution

  by Jigrigger in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi jan,.

  recently, i saw something on a pbs station that was dealing with the subject of evolution.

  due to time constraints, i was only able to catch a small portion of the program.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Jrig,

  I'm not familiar with the theory you are speaking of, but all that I've ever read on the subject agrees that humans and chimps did evolve over totally separate paths. The two paths do converge, though, around 5 to 10 million years ago.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Marvin,

  I know evolution depends on the inanimate producing life.

  How do you know this? See my post above.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Marvin and Anewperson,

  Your reservations about Evolution have no basis. What you really have reservations about is Abiogenesis, which is NOT Evolution. Evolution doesn't care how it all started - some deity could have done that, but after it started, it explains the variety and relatedness in life forms that we see.

  That is one of the greatest misconceptions about Evolution. People assume that it has something to do with atheism, the Big Bang, or Abiogenesis, but it does not. Abiogenesis deals with life from non-life - Evolution does not. Evolution is compatible with both athiestic and theistic philosophies.

  Evolution is obviously a fact (it has withstood over a century of criticism and only becomes stronger with new evidence and techniques), so if a person believes in a deity or deities, then he must believe that they created life from non-living molecules and used the mechanism of Natural Selection to shape life. There is no question that Evolution is a fact, just as there is no question that we live on a spherical earth. There is no theory of special creation that fits all of the facts that we have uncovered.

  I guess what I'm trying to say is don't pretend that you have a reason to dismiss Evolution because you believe in God. You are really rejecting Abiogeneis, not Evolution.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain