• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God and Evolution

ecco

Veteran Member
And I'm not specifically talking about you, but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike.
Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?

From what I see many religious people do not like thinkers and philosophers and disparagingly lump them into "elites".
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Here area couple of reasons I think our ancestors
got into tool use very early.

Imagine a band of basically defenseless apes.
out on the African plain. That is a very rough
neighborhood!

Leopards still like to eat people. I dont think
our ancestors could possibly have survived
except in sizable groups that were constantly
alert. Any predator would then be met with
a hail of rocks.

I learned as a child, a big mean dog will run
if you even stoop to pick up a rock that may
not even be there.

Another is, we dont have snouts and claws
such as would help dig for roots etc. You
need a digging stick. We dont have teeth
etc to crack nuts or open an ostrich egg.
Why dear girl are lots of defenseless apes still around, yet all of the alleged ancestor species of humans are not.

You would think that one isolated population might exist, on some island covered with jungle, somewhere, after all, their abilities to survive were superior to the apes.

Cro Magnon man simply out populated Neanderthal man, yet there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.

These alleged early hominids seemed to be very poor at survival.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I believe in micro evolution, that is the adaption of an organism to its environment. I do not ascribe to macro evolution.


Microevolution is what happens in the short term. It is a subset of the Theory of Evolution.
  • Your comment is like saying you believe in taking steps but you don't believe in walking or hiking.
  • Your comment is like saying you believe in arithmetic but you don't believe in mathematics.
  • Your comment is like saying you believe in the solar system but you don't believe in the universe.

That all sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Why dear girl are lots of defenseless apes still around, yet all of the alleged ancestor species of humans are not.

You would think that one isolated population might exist, on some island covered with jungle, somewhere, after all, their abilities to survive were superior to the apes.

Cro Magnon man simply out populated Neanderthal man, yet there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.

These alleged early hominids seemed to be very poor at survival.

By "defenseless" I mean w/o the teeth, claws, speed etc that
say a baboon has.

Those that I refer to obviously had some ways of protecting
themselves. They lived with such as leopards, pythons,
hyaenas. So, it seemed to me, they were probably handy
with stick and rock. Monkeys throw things, why not
those guys.

Alleged early hominids? You are not denying their
existence are you? "Poor at survival". I guess
old T rex and the sabre tooth tiger were too.
But non human bipedal apes were around for
hundreds of thousands of years, certainly longer
than modern man. Let us not speak too soon, of
who is good at what!

As for tropical forest, that is about the worst place
there is for fossils. There is maybe one specimen of
a fossil chimp. Hard to say who did or did not
live there.

there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.

I dont know why you say that, as all such areas did have
and do have human population as far back as any records
can show.

Anyway...there are a good many fossils of "organisms"
(called that here so as to avoid saying just who they
may be related to) that are definitely not "Homo sapiens"
but that walked upright. Several species, of different
sizes and characteristics.

You do agree to that?
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Microevolution is what happens in the short term. It is a subset of the Theory of Evolution.
  • Your comment is like saying you believe in taking steps but you don't believe in walking or hiking.
  • Your comment is like saying you believe in arithmetic but you don't believe in mathematics.
  • Your comment is like saying you believe in the solar system but you don't believe in the universe.

That all sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?
Nor is there even one shred of evidence that indicates that there's this supposed magical wall between micro- and macro.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why dear girl are lots of defenseless apes still around, yet all of the alleged ancestor species of humans are not.

You would think that one isolated population might exist, on some island covered with jungle, somewhere, after all, their abilities to survive were superior to the apes.

Cro Magnon man simply out populated Neanderthal man, yet there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.

These alleged early hominids seemed to be very poor at survival.


A law person should know how to use the word "alleged" correctly. I guess Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgway are just "alleged murderers" in his book since their is more evidence of evolution than their is of their crimes. Meanwhile he asks questions that only demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concept that he hates. Which tells us his opposition is irrational.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Just in the news is a newly discovered dinosaur,
whose existence was previously only indicated
by footprints that matched no known dinosaur.
By "dfenseless" I mean w/o the teeth, claws, speed etc that
say a baboon has.

Those that I refer to obviously had some ways of protecting
themselves. They lived with such as leopards, pythons,
hyaenas. So, it seemed to me, they were probably handy
with stick and rock. Monkeys throw things, why not
those guys.

Alleged early hominids? You are not denying their
existence are you? "Poor at survival". I guess
old T rex and the sabre tooth tiger were too.
But non human bipedal apes were around for
hundreds of thousands of years, certainly longer
than modern man. Let us not speak too soon, of
who is good at what!

As for tropical forest, that is about the worst place
there is for fossils. There is maybe one specimen of
a fossil chimp. Hard to say who did or did not
live there.

there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.

I dont know why you say that, as all such areas did have
and do have human population as far back as any records
can show.

Anyway...there are a good many fossils of "organisms"
(called that here so as to avoid saying just who they
may be related to) that are definitely not "Homo sapiens"
but that walked upright. Several species, of different
sizes and characteristics.

You do agree to that?
How do you know they walked upright ? What methodology was used to determine that Lucy walked upright ? Or any of them ?

Why do none of them exist today, and why are there huge gaps of millions of years between they and the next creature up the line ?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nor is there even one shred of evidence that indicates that there's this supposed magical wall between micro- and macro.

Which is one of the reasons that it was dropped. It is not a very useful term. Nor can it handle cases of ongoing speciation such as we see with ring species. One cannot even tell where the micro evolution ends and the macro evolution starts.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Then you don't believe in objectively-derived evidence as found as the basis for biological science, ....

I don’t believe silly ideas. But I am not against real scientific findings. All true observations are ok. And actually, there is no need for belief in observations that can be confirmed, they are true facts. All real scientific facts are nice and I accept them. But I don’t accept silly “scientific” beliefs that can be compared to old mother earth religion.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How do you know they walked upright ? What methodology was used to determine that Lucy walked upright ? Or any of them ?

Why do none of them exist today, and why are there huge gaps of millions of years between they and the next creature up the line ?
Seriously, how old is your information?

Human Evolution Timeline Interactive

If you look at that interactive chart you will see a lot of overlap. About Lucy, her skeleton tell us that she walked upright. Her hips alone do that. But that is confirmed by her knees and her foot (not hers but that of another Australopithecus).
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don’t believe silly ideas. But I am not against real scientific findings. All true observations are ok. And actually, there is no need for belief in observations that can be confirmed, they are true facts. All real scientific facts are nice and I accept them. But I don’t accept silly “scientific” beliefs that can be compared to old mother earth religion.
That is good to hear. For a while I thought that you were a science denier. When did you accept the theory of evolution?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
There are some useful points in this post. But with discussing science and religion, I feel like we're talking 'at' one another. I think our views are actually much closer than maybe we expected.

In any case, I shouldn't have entered into this debate. The true topic is not something I have any interest in... I got caught up in an 'aside', which should have been directed in a science sub-forum.
Let me try to clarify something for you: first, I am certainly not a "scientist." And while I'm also an atheist, I think of myself (or perhaps I should say fancy myself) a thinker, with a leaning towards philosophy. I am the first person to tell you that science, to be useful and not harmful in human hands, has to be paired with some moral philosophy or other, whether that be religious or not is hardly the point.

But in my view, any philosophy (or religion) that ignores the findings of science, or tries to claim them to be false because they contradict some assumption or belief, betrays itself. And in doing so, betrays all of us.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Let me try to clarify something for you: first, I am certainly not a "scientist." And while I'm also an atheist, I think of myself (or perhaps I should say fancy myself) a thinker, with a leaning towards philosophy. I am the first person to tell you that science, to be useful and not harmful in human hands, has to be paired with some moral philosophy or other, whether that be religious or not is hardly the point.

But in my view, any philosophy (or religion) that ignores the findings of science, or tries to claim them to be false because they contradict some assumption or belief, betrays itself. And in doing so, betrays all of us.

So then we agree. This is the second time though, that you mistook me as a religious fanatic. The other was in a thread about homosexuality.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?

From what I see many religious people do not like thinkers and philosophers and disparagingly lump them into "elites".

Fundamentalists do not like thinkers. There are religious and scientific fundamentalists -people who reject anything new that is not already proven.

Mostly all of the greatest scientists were at some point heckled by their peers. I suppose such a thing is useful, but taken too far, it does more harm than good... Just like all radicalism.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
So then we agree. This is the second time though, that you mistook me as a religious fanatic. The other was in a thread about homosexuality.
That may be a problem with how we've communicated with each other. I certainly have not mistaken you for a religious fanatic. On the other hand, based on what I've read so far, I'm not really sure where you're coming from. That's not a bad thing, and nobody's to blame. These things take time, and more conversation.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
How do you know they walked upright ? What methodology was used to determine that Lucy walked upright ? Or any of them ?

Why do none of them exist today, and why are there huge gaps of millions of years between they and the next creature up the line ?

Dear Ol' boy,
I guess if you actually wanted to know you
would look into it. Your "millions of years" is
not true, and as for biped? There is no possible
doubt that there were nonhuman bipedal primates,
of several sorts.
If you dont wish to know that, then do not
look into it for yourself.

I kind of hope you will, there is a lot there
that is of interest! Far more than you are
guessing.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Re why did other hominid species die out

Who knows. Extinction is rather
mysterious.

But an empirical rule of survival is,
you do not get coexisting species in the
same ecological niche.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don’t believe silly ideas. But I am not against real scientific findings. All true observations are ok. And actually, there is no need for belief in observations that can be confirmed, they are true facts. All real scientific facts are nice and I accept them. But I don’t accept silly “scientific” beliefs that can be compared to old mother earth religion.
Science is not a "silly idea", nor is the ToE a "silly idea". However, many people, although not me, consider any religion to be a "silly idea".

Science is based on objectively-derived evidence using the "scientific method", whereas religion is based on neither of these, so if one really wants to seriously question which is more likely to be a "silly idea", guess which one logically would most likely be as such?

However, imo, neither the ToE nor one's belief in God(s) is a "silly idea". But what is truly a "silly idea" is to try and negate what scientists the world over know what has happened to life forms over billions of years, namely that they have evolved. I used to belong to a church decades ago that taught that evolution was a "silly idea", and I left it and now be.belong to a church that actually doesn't consider science, nor the ToE, to be a "silly idea".
 

ecco

Veteran Member
And I'm not specifically talking about you, but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike.

Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?

From what I see many religious people do not like thinkers and philosophers and disparagingly lump them into "elites".

Fundamentalists do not like thinkers. There are religious and scientific fundamentalists -people who reject anything new that is not already proven.

Mostly all of the greatest scientists were at some point heckled by their peers. I suppose such a thing is useful, but taken too far, it does more harm than good... Just like all radicalism.

First off, you stated;
...but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike.​
I raised the question;
Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?​
Now you have changed that a little to state that;
Fundamentalists do not like thinkers.​
But then you qualify that with;
There are religious and scientific fundamentalists -people who reject anything new that is not already proven.
Your definition is, at best, confusing. I am well aware of the what a religious fundamentalist is: One who takes holy scripture literally (although many retain the right to pick and choose).

I was not familiar with the term "scientific fundamentalism".

After doing some digging, I found this on a site that supports
acupuncture, homeopathy, Ayurveda, and holistic medicine;


The Rise of Scientific Fundamentalism

The fascist impulses of scientific fundamentalism serve first and foremost to restrict freedom of thought. Scientism is an abuse of scientific authority that justifies just about any claim that one wishes to make, all in the name of science. Scientism is, in actual fact, anti-science. Mainstream medicine would do itself a big favor by separating itself from all scientistic influences.​

Have you forgotten, or did you just choose to ignore, that science is not in the business of "proving" anything. So, "people who reject anything new that is not already proven" is really meaningless in terms of trying to apply it to people who support science. To label them "scientific fundamentalists" is nonsensical, unless one has an agenda.

It seems that the people who coined and use the terms "scientific fundamentalism" and "scientism" do so in a vain attempt to try to disparage people who despise woo. Does this apply to you?
 
Top