• 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!

Has human evolution been disproved?

Amill

Apikoros
You're mistaken in your words, not your math.

We are only 99% similar to Chimpanzees, as far as I know, and we are not monkeys, and never were monkeys.

Were APES.

There's actually arguments that say we're both apes and monkeys. Not really any different than saying we evolved from mammals and we're still mammals. The argument is that you don't lose your ancestry. This is a good video.
[youtube]4A-dMqEbSk8[/youtube]
YouTube - Turns out we DID come from monkeys!
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
... Again, as for why GOD chose the number 19, you will have to read above. If it's too much I'll find the section and paste it for you. Cheers.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that God chose for this amazing coincidence for the number 19 to appear as often as you say in the book "Moby Dick"?
 

Gabethewiking

Active Member
Snowber, tell me, you do not find it (your personal self, your subjective view) a bit strange that your God use the arbitrary number 19 to prove himself?

Rather then, say, Show himself for the people of the world? Or just maybe something useful, the recipe for various vaccinations or cure for HIV?... I mean, number 19? Its a number.
 

Snowber

Active Member
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that God chose for this amazing coincidence for the number 19 to appear as often as you say in the book "Moby Dick"?

Nope, in this point I was talking about "WHY" the #19 is used, not about how many appearances it has which is far great than 7.

Snowber, tell me, you do not find it (your personal self, your subjective view) a bit strange that your God use the arbitrary number 19 to prove himself?

Rather then, say, Show himself for the people of the world? Or just maybe something useful, the recipe for various vaccinations or cure for HIV?... I mean, number 19? Its a number.

People who do not know the religion have always asked these questions dear Gabe, but, in fact we know that had GOD shown Himself or ever direct proof of Himself the test would be over, please see below the Koran's reasoning for this:

[2:210] Are they waiting until GOD Himself comes to them in dense clouds, together with the angels? When this happens, the whole matter will be terminated, and to GOD everything will be returned.

Once this happens the test is over and there's no point for us to continue. The plan was, though, to continue the test until everyone has been tested.


I have not ignored other posts with the video and the link, I did read/watch some but my time is very limited due to school/work.

I'd like to pose a question and have everyone's honest answer:

If we did evolve from certain types of mammals and we got to the point that we can use logic and reasoning to a level significantly beyond any other creatures on earth or in the water, why is it that somewhere on the other side of the world (or maybe closer) another creature has not evolved with similar ability for reasoning and logical deduction?

This is not to offend anyone, just want everyone's take on it. Thanks
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I'd like to pose a question and have everyone's honest answer:

If we did evolve from certain types of mammals and we got to the point that we can use logic and reasoning to a level significantly beyond any other creatures on earth or in the water, why is it that somewhere on the other side of the world (or maybe closer) another creature has not evolved with similar ability for reasoning and logical deduction?

This is not to offend anyone, just want everyone's take on it. Thanks

1. Why would they?
2. How would we know if they had?

Mutations are random and are happening all the time. Those that endure are the ones that are advantageous to a particular species' survival in a particular biosphere. That's just how it is. Asking why other species haven't got human brains doesn't make any sense. Why can't pigs fly? Why does the sun rise in the east instead of the west?

Humans tend to assume having a big brain and complex reasoning skills is a major evolutionary leap. Pure narcissism if you ask me. I'd trade my complex reasoning skills in for wings any day, or for the ability to be amphibious.
 

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
I'd like to pose a question and have everyone's honest answer:

If we did evolve from certain types of mammals and we got to the point that we can use logic and reasoning to a level significantly beyond any other creatures on earth or in the water, why is it that somewhere on the other side of the world (or maybe closer) another creature has not evolved with similar ability for reasoning and logical deduction?

This is not to offend anyone, just want everyone's take on it. Thanks
Nothing offensive here. Several mammalian (and bird) species have evolved what might reasonably be called intelligence, in the form of simple problem-solving skills etc; obviously humans have taken this a great deal further, and it's a reasonable question to ask why us, not them. One possible answer is a combination of need and opportunity.

Need, in the sense that humans are not locked into a tight ecological niche but exploit whatever resources come to hand; big brains capable of working out new strategies for exploiting new resources would have survival value and be selected for. Whereas a grazer, for example, whose whole body is built and wired for exploiting one resource in one very specialised way, would have nothing to gain by developing a big brain capable of abstract reasoning. (Pace Terry Pratchett's camels.)

Opportunity, in the sense that bipedalism freed up our hands from having to double as walking platforms, and made possible their evolution as dexterous manipulators capable of fashioning complex tools; that in turn will have fed back onto brain evolution, making useful the ability to envisage tools in advance of making them.

Neither of these ideas need be correct, and I have no way of demonstrating that they are. They merely show that the question is capable of being answered.
 
If a bee evolves to have a certain number of eyes, why not more? Surely it could help, why not evolve the brain of the bee to be able to use even more eyes? Is it because they don't "need" more eyes? Humans don't need a lot of what they are given, but we still have more than what we need.

Evolution is not a chosen path as in "oooh an extra pair of eyes would be handy, i'll grow some"
It has to have come from random gentic mutation (or mistake),and only if this mutation has feeding and mating benefits (giving it the edge over other Bees') will you see the mutation become more frequent among the general population (as generations come and go).

The same goes for humans, it's not a product of what we need, but of what adaptations have been most successful.

I can't quite say that I am ready to believe this is a literal statement though, it sounds more figurative. If it is the truth that we have a common ancestor with apes and we didn't get created straight from water/wet mud then may I be guided to see the truth for it. As it stands I don't believe there is "proof", whatever proof is anymore, to show it. Just interesting evidence, but as we know evidence isn't always enough, and there have been people who have been convicted wrongly over "overwhelming evidence" (ok maybe not to that extent).

Yet you probably believe we were made from water/wet mud without no "proof or evidence? Why the double standards?
You say there is no proof, just interesting evidence? would you care to define what is the difference?

Also I admit that my research on evolution was not enough to truly start an argument against it but I appreciate all the feedback. Besides unnecessary comments I feel it was a healthy discussion.

I truly advise you read up on it more and how it works, it would be a great help.
One last point (and this may not apply to everyone, I understand that):

Using the same logic many people don't believe in a god because they have not "seen" god, we can also ask how we can truly believe in evolution if we have not SEEN evolution (and when I say evolution I am speaking in regards to the evolution of humans).
We have seen Evolution amongst other animal species though, so why would we be exempt from the rule?...animals evolve.
Remember to take the religious tinted glasses off before you answer that.

On the otherhand, God has never been demonstrated to exist, so you cannot compare the two.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Riverwolf,

I admit that was an interesting video but the argument seems more focused towards people who just say that a Boeing 747 is assembled by a tornado in a junkyard or a dictionary is assembled from an explosion in a printing factory, and though these arguments may be made, they cannot be made simply on the basis of someone saying that the chances of GOD existing are 50-50 or any number of gods existing and the chances declining progressively.

Instead the argument I am trying to make is based more on actual numbers which the maker of the video seems to be looking for rather than someone just telling him chances must be 50/50 of a god existing and so forth.

Here we have actual numbers stated to derive the argument that "evolution is like a dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory".

Please take a look at the following quote:



Using this same method we are able to make the argument that the "chances" of humans evolving from ANOTHER species is nil.

We may have very well come from a more primitive form of a human being, but not another creature altogether.

Thank you for the video, I am glad that we have a open thought forums like these to discuss these types of matters.


:facepalm:.....Look, here's a good place to start.

[youtube]Hzx2F8fqyEA[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzx2F8fqyEA&feature=related
 

Gabethewiking

Active Member
Once this happens the test is over and there's no point for us to continue. The plan was, though, to continue the test until everyone has been tested.

After 2 millions years, 1 million years or 400 thousand years, he has not yet shown himself should tell you something.. Shouldn't it?
 

Snowber

Active Member
After 2 millions years, 1 million years or 400 thousand years, he has not yet shown himself should tell you something.. Shouldn't it?

I think instead we should ponder on how we can live for millions, or even hundreds of thousands of years in a "chaotic" universe. The chances of life being initiated, to begin with, are extremely slim, yet we've gotten far past the point of a "simple cell" (which was far from simple even then). What is an atheist's theory on how life could have begun in such chaos? Over millions/billions of years? How did it initiate to begin with? Surely even if ONE of the laws of life started to come into place on a planet the chances of it being disturbed, I think, are far greater than that of it progressing, am I wrong in assuming this?

As for the comments about evolution, I admit I have much research to do and plan to work on that before responding to comments made, because, in the end, my argument is going to be that, the answer for why a lot of creatures being able to evolve, but not necessarily humans, is because if you believe in a Supreme Being capable of anything, you believe that GOD could have made 99.9% of the creatures evolve, and .000001 percent not evolve, doesn't that go hand in hand with belief in a Creator?
 

RedOne77

Active Member
After 2 millions years, 1 million years or 400 thousand years, he has not yet shown himself should tell you something.. Shouldn't it?

From a Christian perspective God doesn't reveal Himself to humanity in a definitive way that shows proof of Himself because he wants us to have true faith; for our faith is more precious than gold to God. If He were to reveal Himself in such a way then there would be no need for faith, and through faith all things are possible.
 

RedOne77

Active Member
I think instead we should ponder on how we can live for millions, or even hundreds of thousands of years in a "chaotic" universe. The chances of life being initiated, to begin with, are extremely slim, yet we've gotten far past the point of a "simple cell" (which was far from simple even then). What is an atheist's theory on how life could have begun in such chaos? Over millions/billions of years? How did it initiate to begin with? Surely even if ONE of the laws of life started to come into place on a planet the chances of it being disturbed, I think, are far greater than that of it progressing, am I wrong in assuming this?

What do you mean by a "chaotic universe"? You seem to be alluding to the second law of thermodynamics, where the universe is always going towards a state of chaos as entropy increases. While this is true on a universal scale, you can have pockets within the universe where entropy decreases, and thus chaos decreases as well. Earth (as a whole) receives energy from the Sun, so it isn't a closed system (which is required for the second law to apply), so there is no problem for life to exist for long periods of time in a chaotic universe.

As for the comments about evolution, I admit I have much research to do and plan to work on that before responding to comments made, because, in the end, my argument is going to be that, the answer for why a lot of creatures being able to evolve, but not necessarily humans, is because if you believe in a Supreme Being capable of anything, you believe that GOD could have made 99.9% of the creatures evolve, and .000001 percent not evolve, doesn't that go hand in hand with belief in a Creator?

God can do as He pleases, but the real question inevitably becomes "does the evidence supports this conclusion?"
 

Snowber

Active Member
What do you mean by a "chaotic universe"? You seem to be alluding to the second law of thermodynamics, where the universe is always going towards a state of chaos as entropy increases. While this is true on a universal scale, you can have pockets within the universe where entropy decreases, and thus chaos decreases as well. Earth (as a whole) receives energy from the Sun, so it isn't a closed system (which is required for the second law to apply), so there is no problem for life to exist for long periods of time in a chaotic universe.


I'm examining this from a slightly different point of view. Looking at all the facotrs for survival on Earth, it seems extremely unlikely in an unorganized universe that life would thrive anywhere in the universe (if the universe even somehow found a way to come into existence in the first place). I'm thinking more along the lines of factors like:

  • The moon being half the size
  • The Moon's Angle Varying more like Mars's Moon
  • Not Having Gravity on Earth
  • Not Having one of the essential provisions (food/water/etc)
  • Not having a protective Atmosphere
  • So on and so forth..

An interesting article talks about life without the Moon:

Life Without the Moon

So disregarding any specific arguments concerning religion. Speaking from one human being to another, is it not beyond chance that we are here?

I think another interesting piece of media (video) about whether GOD does or does not exist is by Lee Strobel called "A Case for a Creator". Lee Strobel became Atheist after seeing a science experiment where his professor mimic'd how the essentials for life could have come from water. He later became a Christian and did this video on evidence for a Creator.

(video is on youtube if anyone is really interested). I'm not claiming it's flawless but I would also like to hear opinions from different sides.
 
I'm examining this from a slightly different point of view. Looking at all the facotrs for survival on Earth, it seems extremely unlikely in an unorganized universe that life would thrive anywhere in the universe (if the universe even somehow found a way to come into existence in the first place). I'm thinking more along the lines of factors like:

  • The moon being half the size
  • The Moon's Angle Varying more like Mars's Moon
  • Not Having Gravity on Earth
  • Not Having one of the essential provisions (food/water/etc)
  • Not having a protective Atmosphere
  • So on and so forth..
The only reason we are in awe about all these things that have happened out of pure chance is because we are here to observe it. Our planet is far from perfect and we have a lot of trouble with weather and natural disasters and the such, if there was a divine Creator who is all powerful, why would there be the need for all these hazards?

There are plenty of other solar systems that have planets that are completely barren because the chances of all these things happening are slim.
On the otherhand there are planets out there which are perfectly capable of supporting life, and seem to have a lot of the seemingly core ingredients. Gilese 381c is a prime example.
So disregarding any specific arguments concerning religion. Speaking from one human being to another, is it not beyond chance that we are here?

Don't get me wrong it is plausible, but so are a lot of other options, not just a creator. By the way, having a moon is not a rare occurance, even in our system.
I think another interesting piece of media (video) about whether GOD does or does not exist is by Lee Strobel called "A Case for a Creator". Lee Strobel became Atheist after seeing a science experiment where his professor mimic'd how the essentials for life could have come from water. He later became a Christian and did this video on evidence for a Creator.

(video is on youtube if anyone is really interested). I'm not claiming it's flawless but I would also like to hear opinions from different sides.

Lee Strobel is not a qualified Scientist and can only offer an opinion on the subject. He is also a lawyer and we all know what they are about.
How does he get from a Creator, to the Christian God being the Creator?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
From a Christian perspective God doesn't reveal Himself to humanity in a definitive way that shows proof of Himself because he wants us to have true faith; for our faith is more precious than gold to God. If He were to reveal Himself in such a way then there would be no need for faith, and through faith all things are possible.

I've always been amazed at such statements. When you typed the words "because he wants us to ...", you are effectively placing yourself in the position of speaking for God - as if you know His mind and heart.

I place that in juxtaposition with statements like "We are merely humans, and we cannot know God's mind, or his plans for us".

Which is it? Do you speak for God, or is it not possible to know His mind?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
God can do as He pleases, but the real question inevitably becomes "does the evidence supports this conclusion?"
How can you say this with a straight face? As a creationist, you have clearly demonstrated that evidence to support a position is completely irrelavant.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
I think instead we should ponder on how we can live for millions, or even hundreds of thousands of years in a "chaotic" universe. The chances of life being initiated, to begin with, are extremely slim, yet we've gotten far past the point of a "simple cell" (which was far from simple even then). What is an atheist's theory on how life could have begun in such chaos? Over millions/billions of years? How did it initiate to begin with? Surely even if ONE of the laws of life started to come into place on a planet the chances of it being disturbed, I think, are far greater than that of it progressing, am I wrong in assuming this?

As for the comments about evolution, I admit I have much research to do and plan to work on that before responding to comments made, because, in the end, my argument is going to be that, the answer for why a lot of creatures being able to evolve, but not necessarily humans, is because if you believe in a Supreme Being capable of anything, you believe that GOD could have made 99.9% of the creatures evolve, and .000001 percent not evolve, doesn't that go hand in hand with belief in a Creator?

This post has several fundamental flaws:
1) You begin by simply ignoring the question put to you by Gabe, only to shift the entire debate to a point of your own.
2) The debate about the statistical probability of life (or more specifically, human life) evolving has been done ad nauseum. It may be new to you, but it has truly been covered time and again. In a nutshell, the probability is exactly 1.
3) There is no such thing as an "atheist's theory" on how life began amid such chaos. You demonstrate the fallacy that all atheists agree on many things. The only thing that all atheists agree on is the non-existence of God(s). It isn't like atheists have meetings to discuss what the "party line" is, regarding things like morals. There are atheists that embrace virtually any position that you can posit, other than the existence of God.
4) Lastly, the idea that if evolution is wrong, then God must have created mankind and the universe is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. The fact that one cannot think of other alternatives does not automatically mean that if one choice is wrong, the other MUST be right.
 

Gabethewiking

Active Member
From a Christian perspective God doesn't reveal Himself to humanity in a definitive way that shows proof of Himself because he wants us to have true faith; for our faith is more precious than gold to God. If He were to reveal Himself in such a way then there would be no need for faith, and through faith all things are possible.

How do you know he wants true faith and it is not just something other humans told you to make you believe?
 

Gabethewiking

Active Member
What do you mean by a "chaotic universe"? You seem to be alluding to the second law of thermodynamics, where the universe is always going towards a state of chaos as entropy increases. While this is true on a universal scale, you can have pockets within the universe where entropy decreases, and thus chaos decreases as well. Earth (as a whole) receives energy from the Sun, so it isn't a closed system (which is required for the second law to apply), so there is no problem for life to exist for long periods of time in a chaotic universe.



God can do as He pleases, but the real question inevitably becomes "does the evidence supports this conclusion?"

You need to read up on what actually Entropy is and what "chaos" would mean in this case. I was very surprised years ago to actually LEARN what Entropy WAS. You should read up about it as well before making comments on something you have no knowledge about.
 

Gabethewiking

Active Member
I'm examining this from a slightly different point of view. Looking at all the facotrs for survival on Earth, it seems extremely unlikely in an unorganized universe that life would thrive anywhere in the universe (if the universe even somehow found a way to come into existence in the first place). I'm thinking more along the lines of factors like:

  • The moon being half the size
  • The Moon's Angle Varying more like Mars's Moon
  • Not Having Gravity on Earth
  • Not Having one of the essential provisions (food/water/etc)
  • Not having a protective Atmosphere
  • So on and so forth..
An interesting article talks about life without the Moon:

Life Without the Moon

So disregarding any specific arguments concerning religion. Speaking from one human being to another, is it not beyond chance that we are here?

I think another interesting piece of media (video) about whether GOD does or does not exist is by Lee Strobel called "A Case for a Creator". Lee Strobel became Atheist after seeing a science experiment where his professor mimic'd how the essentials for life could have come from water. He later became a Christian and did this video on evidence for a Creator.

(video is on youtube if anyone is really interested). I'm not claiming it's flawless but I would also like to hear opinions from different sides.

How is "chance" relevant? We would not exist if it was not as it is, very simple, The universe does not exist for You, you exist because the Universe looks at it does, learn that and you will understand alot.
 
Top