|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#101
05-07-2004, 05:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Inca,
First of all, I just want to say that if I seemed cocky to you, I am truly sorry for that was not my intention at all. I am up for being proven wrong any day of the week. Against my better judgement, I didn't read through this entire thread before I wrote my post, but as you referred to your previous posts, I will give them a look. I also just want to add that I try to never take anything at face value. I believe in evolution, not because it has been spoon fed to me, but because I feel it makes good logical sense. I have investigated creationism as well, but in the end evolution won the battle. I'll check out more of your other posts and be back.
__________________
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. ~Socrates 
|
|
#102
05-07-2004, 05:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Inca,
First of all, I just want to say that if I seemed cocky to you, I am truly sorry for that was not my intention at all. I am up for being proven wrong any day of the week. Against my better judgement, I didn't read through this entire thread before I wrote my post, but as you referred to your previous posts, I will give them a look. I also just want to add that I try to never take anything at face value. I believe in evolution, not because it has been spoon fed to me, but because I feel it makes good logical sense. I have investigated creationism as well, but in the end evolution won the battle. I'll check out more of your other posts and be back.
__________________
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. ~Socrates
|
|
#103
05-07-2004, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Inca-
Thanks for calling people with a different opinion than you stupid, dumb, ignorant, etc- all that name-calling really reflects on how intelligent you must be :roll: First of all, the things you are pointing out here are debates that are ocurring within the scientific community about the different aspects of the theory of evolution. You seem to be very interested in, and knowledgeable about, science and various scientists. So I think we still agree that, if we want to find out where humans came from, we need to investigate the matter using scientific methods and not a literal translation of the Bible stories. Just like most theories, there are exceptions and gaps in our knowledge that we can't explain yet. However, I highly doubt many scientists would interpret the various problems with the theory of evolution as proof of Creationism, which is a religious belief. At absolute most, your arguments suggest that the theory of evolution needs to be revised or added to, a statement with which some scientists agree. However, in no way do your arguments make the theory of evolution, which is based on science and logic, inferior to the theory of Creationism, which is based on religious stories written over a millennia ago. You yourself use science to illustrate holes in evolutionary theory. Surely you must agree that, just because the theory isn't perfect, we should throw scientific investigation into the subject out the door because the answers were there all along in stories contained in the Bible.
__________________
|
|
#104
05-07-2004, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Inca-
Thanks for calling people with a different opinion than you stupid, dumb, ignorant, etc- all that name-calling really reflects on how intelligent you must be :roll: First of all, the things you are pointing out here are debates that are ocurring within the scientific community about the different aspects of the theory of evolution. You seem to be very interested in, and knowledgeable about, science and various scientists. So I think we still agree that, if we want to find out where humans came from, we need to investigate the matter using scientific methods and not a literal translation of the Bible stories. Just like most theories, there are exceptions and gaps in our knowledge that we can't explain yet. However, I highly doubt many scientists would interpret the various problems with the theory of evolution as proof of Creationism, which is a religious belief. At absolute most, your arguments suggest that the theory of evolution needs to be revised or added to, a statement with which some scientists agree. However, in no way do your arguments make the theory of evolution, which is based on science and logic, inferior to the theory of Creationism, which is based on religious stories written over a millennia ago. You yourself use science to illustrate holes in evolutionary theory. Surely you must agree that, just because the theory isn't perfect, we should throw scientific investigation into the subject out the door because the answers were there all along in stories contained in the Bible.
__________________
|
|
#105
05-07-2004, 10:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Inca-
>The so-called Eohippus, the ancestral of the horse was probably a daman, an animal who actually exists in Africa.< ok, I'm going to give you the bennifit of the doubt in thinking you haven't actually compaired the two for yourself... Eohippus aka. Hyracotherium and daman aka the Hyrax are nothing alike... Lets compair.... here is a picture of the so called Eohippus http://www.researchcasting.ca/hyraco...asacciense.htm and here is a picture of the skull of Hyrax and the body http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/Hyrax_Skull.jpg http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.ed....jpg/view.html as you can see they are quite different... 1 the Hyrax has large rodent like insisors while eohipus does not... in fact it has horse dentition with nipping front teeth and a gap leading to the canine teeth and another larger gap leading to the molars... like horses... 2 eohipus' skull is longer and lower and not as short and wide as Hyrax now on to the body.... 1 Hyrax is plantigrade (it walks on the soles of its feet) Eohipus is ditigrade (it walks on the tips of its toes) 2 the legs of Eohipus are far longer and straiter than the legs of Hyrax... wich overall looks very rodent like... and if your going on the number of toes then lets include other animals with the same arangement... Rodents (wich look more like Hyrax than Hyrax looks like Eohipus) - Agouti, Viscacha, and Cavy Tapiers and some prehistoric Rhinos... as for building an animal based on a singel bone... I dislike that as well... fortunatly Eohippus/Hyracotherium is known from several nearly complete skelitions... including the skulls, hips, legs, feet, ribs and vertebra... wa:-do
|
|
#106
05-07-2004, 10:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Inca-
>The so-called Eohippus, the ancestral of the horse was probably a daman, an animal who actually exists in Africa.< ok, I'm going to give you the bennifit of the doubt in thinking you haven't actually compaired the two for yourself... Eohippus aka. Hyracotherium and daman aka the Hyrax are nothing alike... Lets compair.... here is a picture of the so called Eohippus http://www.researchcasting.ca/hyraco...asacciense.htm and here is a picture of the skull of Hyrax and the body http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/Hyrax_Skull.jpg http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.ed....jpg/view.html as you can see they are quite different... 1 the Hyrax has large rodent like insisors while eohipus does not... in fact it has horse dentition with nipping front teeth and a gap leading to the canine teeth and another larger gap leading to the molars... like horses... 2 eohipus' skull is longer and lower and not as short and wide as Hyrax now on to the body.... 1 Hyrax is plantigrade (it walks on the soles of its feet) Eohipus is ditigrade (it walks on the tips of its toes) 2 the legs of Eohipus are far longer and straiter than the legs of Hyrax... wich overall looks very rodent like... and if your going on the number of toes then lets include other animals with the same arangement... Rodents (wich look more like Hyrax than Hyrax looks like Eohipus) - Agouti, Viscacha, and Cavy Tapiers and some prehistoric Rhinos... as for building an animal based on a singel bone... I dislike that as well... fortunatly Eohippus/Hyracotherium is known from several nearly complete skelitions... including the skulls, hips, legs, feet, ribs and vertebra... wa:-do
|
|
#107
05-08-2004, 05:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it deserves a better explanation of my points. I'm not a defender of all theories of Creationists. I'm not confusing religion with science. All my arguments so far have been using scientific data not religion. Theory of evolution has been around enough time to be proved. It just missed the target. How funny is I show the similarities between a daman with the so-called ancester of the horses and someone mentions the differences of the skulls. Yet, in the evolutionist books you find the design of a fish and then they explain the parts were the "ancestral" part of an organ in the mammals!!!!!! That's a typical example how come the arguments can be used only by them whenever they want but not against them! The existence of the daman until now, it doesn't mean the daman didn't change or did have "adaptations" in the past. My point was and is, the fact that you find a fossil doesn't mean we have to believe the lables they put on. All hominid fossil don't necessarily mean they were ancestrals of humans (in that sense the evolutionist doesn't care about differences, right???? Very oportunistic!), they could've been no missing link at all but species of apes. The survival of the most skilled has always been a fiasco. The less skilled survived (chimps, Rhesus, orangutangos, gorillas and in fact all kind of beings:reptiles,birds,sea mammals, fish, etc) altogether with us, the most "evolved" creature. Yet the most skilled than apes, the missing link dissapeared! First we have to demonstrate why on Earth those missing links dissapeared in first place. I repeat, dissapearence doesn't explain how come they came to existence and fossils are complete all over the place, no hocus pocus magic.
|
|
#108
05-08-2004, 05:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it deserves a better explanation of my points. I'm not a defender of all theories of Creationists. I'm not confusing religion with science. All my arguments so far have been using scientific data not religion. Theory of evolution has been around enough time to be proved. It just missed the target. How funny is I show the similarities between a daman with the so-called ancester of the horses and someone mentions the differences of the skulls. Yet, in the evolutionist books you find the design of a fish and then they explain the parts were the "ancestral" part of an organ in the mammals!!!!!! That's a typical example how come the arguments can be used only by them whenever they want but not against them! The existence of the daman until now, it doesn't mean the daman didn't change or did have "adaptations" in the past. My point was and is, the fact that you find a fossil doesn't mean we have to believe the lables they put on. All hominid fossil don't necessarily mean they were ancestrals of humans (in that sense the evolutionist doesn't care about differences, right???? Very oportunistic!), they could've been no missing link at all but species of apes. The survival of the most skilled has always been a fiasco. The less skilled survived (chimps, Rhesus, orangutangos, gorillas and in fact all kind of beings:reptiles,birds,sea mammals, fish, etc) altogether with us, the most "evolved" creature. Yet the most skilled than apes, the missing link dissapeared! First we have to demonstrate why on Earth those missing links dissapeared in first place. I repeat, dissapearence doesn't explain how come they came to existence and fossils are complete all over the place, no hocus pocus magic.
|
|
#109
05-08-2004, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. Spinkles :drink: when I use the adjectives I use them purposely cos I already read how the people disconsider or disregard the religious concepts as "ridiculous". What happens is that people are really ignorant both in science & religion but dare to talk and write. Of course, they feel ofended
 when the argument is thrown to their own faces since they believed they were writing "knowing" . So, your response doesn't surprise me. I regret evolution theory doesn't have holes. The whole theory is a superblack hole. Now, when the people make statments overlooking or diminushing the understanding of things , let's say 1000 years ago...it's also due to ignorance cos the books usually pay too much atention to Western civilization and what was understood from the Greeks. That hyper-value of Greek culture is subtly set in our days when science chooses Greek names to lable discoveries, animal or vegetable species, etc. The same happens with Latin culture. Hence, I won't discuss here about religion. If the understanding of science is not upgrade in the ones who make apology of evolution, how come would we expect them to know about religion? The things I have written here is just the top of the iceberg. My discussion here focused just in a couple of things. If I keep on digging the issue will certainly change and we would end taking about a comparision between the speed of an elephant compared with the speed of sauroposseidon or the explanation why the cockroaches were giant as well or birds the size of a horse and I will have to make -AGAIN- a long list of scientists and books, pages, etc, to point out so many items that in fact you're gonna be confused. Don't lable me as if I were something that you don't know. I'm just sharing with you a couple of things, I don't want you to believe in me. Nobody convinces anyone. Sometimes our understanding doesn't even depend on mind but heart attitude. I have seen this in medical congresses in cancer treatment and how do the scientists behave. They are just humans who can (and did) deceive the public with fossils like Hesperopitecus, Piltdown, Orce, Zijanthropus, etc. The people "swallow" the information but they are not skeptical enough. They trust too much without searching. A French guy discovered in Java island the fragments of an "hominid" (if my memory doesn't fail me cos I read that name 18 years ago, the name of the one who discovered the fossils was Dubois), well he discovered the fragments miles distance from other fragments. Yet he said ALL THE FRAGMENTS BELONGED TO THE SAME BEING!!!! Is that science? Just pullling my legs! It's an example.
|
|
#110
05-08-2004, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. Spinkles :drink: when I use the adjectives I use them purposely cos I already read how the people disconsider or disregard the religious concepts as "ridiculous". What happens is that people are really ignorant both in science & religion but dare to talk and write. Of course, they feel ofended
when the argument is thrown to their own faces since they believed they were writing "knowing" . So, your response doesn't surprise me. I regret evolution theory doesn't have holes. The whole theory is a superblack hole. Now, when the people make statments overlooking or diminushing the understanding of things , let's say 1000 years ago...it's also due to ignorance cos the books usually pay too much atention to Western civilization and what was understood from the Greeks. That hyper-value of Greek culture is subtly set in our days when science chooses Greek names to lable discoveries, animal or vegetable species, etc. The same happens with Latin culture. Hence, I won't discuss here about religion. If the understanding of science is not upgrade in the ones who make apology of evolution, how come would we expect them to know about religion? The things I have written here is just the top of the iceberg. My discussion here focused just in a couple of things. If I keep on digging the issue will certainly change and we would end taking about a comparision between the speed of an elephant compared with the speed of sauroposseidon or the explanation why the cockroaches were giant as well or birds the size of a horse and I will have to make -AGAIN- a long list of scientists and books, pages, etc, to point out so many items that in fact you're gonna be confused. Don't lable me as if I were something that you don't know. I'm just sharing with you a couple of things, I don't want you to believe in me. Nobody convinces anyone. Sometimes our understanding doesn't even depend on mind but heart attitude. I have seen this in medical congresses in cancer treatment and how do the scientists behave. They are just humans who can (and did) deceive the public with fossils like Hesperopitecus, Piltdown, Orce, Zijanthropus, etc. The people "swallow" the information but they are not skeptical enough. They trust too much without searching. A French guy discovered in Java island the fragments of an "hominid" (if my memory doesn't fail me cos I read that name 18 years ago, the name of the one who discovered the fossils was Dubois), well he discovered the fragments miles distance from other fragments. Yet he said ALL THE FRAGMENTS BELONGED TO THE SAME BEING!!!! Is that science? Just pullling my legs! It's an example.
|
