Reply With Quote
Problem is, he doesn't want to know, he wants to stay in his Jeebo bubble and not have to deal with differing opinions.... his response will likely be more strawmen and irrelevant questions and/or a bunch of reassuring emoticons, tbh....
Most basic level:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree
A bit more detail, showing the full phlyogeny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...uman_evolutionsapiens taxonomy[edit]The cladistic line of descent (taxonomic rank) of sapiens (modern humans) is as follows:
Taxonomic rank Name Common name Millions of
years ago
Domain Eukaryota Cells with a nucleus 2,100
Kingdom Animalia Animals 590
Phylum Chordata Vertebrates and closely related invertebrates 530
Subphylum Vertebrata Vertebrates 505
Superclass Tetrapoda Tetrapods 395
Unranked Amniota Amniotes, tetrapods that are fully terrestrially-adapted 340
Class Mammalia Mammals 220
Subclass Theriiformes Mammals that birth live young (i.e. non-egg-laying)
Infraclass Eutheria Placental mammals (i.e. non-marsupials) 125
Magnorder Boreoeutheria Supraprimates, bats, whales, most hoofed mammals, and most carnivorous mammals
Superorder Euarchontoglires Supraprimates (primates, rodents, rabbits, tree shrews, and colugos) 100
Grandorder Euarchonta Primates, colugos and tree shrews
Mirorder Primatomorpha Primates and colugos 79.6
Order Primates Primates 75
Suborder Haplorrhini "Dry-nosed" (literally, "simple-nosed") primates (apes, monkeys, and tarsiers) 40
Infraorder Simiiformes "Higher" primates (or Simians) (apes, old-world monkeys, and new-world monkeys)
Parvorder Catarrhini "Downward-nosed" primates (apes and old-world monkeys) 30
Superfamily Hominoidea Apes 28
Family Hominidae Great apes (Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) 15
Subfamily Homininae Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas 8
Tribe Hominini Genera and Australopithecus 5.8
Subtribe Hominina Contains only the Genus 2.5
Genus Humans 2.5
Species (Archaic) sapiens Modern humans 0.5
Subspecies sapiens sapiens Fully anatomically modern humans 0.2
The information is out there, if you bother to find it.
Why have you not looked for it before this? Aren't there better places to find this information than a basketball forum?
Problem is, he doesn't want to know, he wants to stay in his Jeebo bubble and not have to deal with differing opinions.... his response will likely be more strawmen and irrelevant questions and/or a bunch of reassuring emoticons, tbh....
I understand that will happen, with little doubt.
What I am mindful of, though, is that often places like this are the first places that many are actually exposed to things that contradict their pre-existing beliefs, or with concepts like logical fallacies, principles of intellectual honesty, and empiricism.
People that post in this way often have never been given the tools to actually evaluate what they are being told. Critical thinking is a hard skill to teach and learn.
I view it as my job to give them the tools and conceptual framework to finally get around to asking the questions they should have been asking, and the information that their own confirmation bias has not allowed them to understand or learn yet.
For that reason I generally try, not always successfully, to be polite and patient.
I have had at least one person PM me saying "thanks, you changed my mind after I took the time to read for myself."
Even if no one had done so, I would still be making the case, simply because it seems like the right thing to do.
Call me Sisyphus.
If you didn't know or actively were lied to, you would want someone to make the effort to tell you the truth, wouldn't you?
Sounds like preaching to me. Evolution is full of , IDK how someone as intelligent as you can't see that.
You could write a book on the whole theory, everything fits into it. Why do scientist get so upset when people question evolution? Why do they automatically assume that people who don't believe in it are idiots?
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.
The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. Because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just..," [Silence fills the room] "...the absence of it." [More silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.] "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..."
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.
"Explain...oh explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there is, now look..."
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?" [The teacher is temporarily speechless.] The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" [The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.] "Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"
"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"I believe in what is-that's science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED?" the professor splutters. The class is in uproar.
The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" [The professor wisely keeps silent.] The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter.The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain...felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."
The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.
Looks to me that all the evidence points to the validity of evolution.
But then most critical thinkers already knew this beforehand.
Whereas creationist theory is relatively new and lacks the basic necessities of scientific method IMHO.
Having said this, this neither debunks nor proves the existence of God, nor of any of the truths which may be contained in the bible despite the claims that it is the Word of said God.
What it does do however is show what I've been saying all along and that is that the bible cannot be interpreted literally, especially the OT.
Plus IMHO, it is chock full of inconsistencies, thus why I examine it as I do any book of teachings, with a high level of skepticism, and choose to accept only what my studies have shown me to be consistently referenced by other books of the same nature.
Even then, and since replication is impossible for the most part, a critical mind needs to rely on a certain amount of intuition, thus meditation is necessary as well.
And ones experiences in life have a bearing too.
Evolution theory is pretty much a given, since it conforms to scientific methodology and to attempt to dispute it is folly.
So how does this correlate this with biblical accounts?
The answer is that it literally does not, thus if the bible, or parts of the bible are to be believed then the events are more in line with a figurative nature i.e. a day could easily be millions of years to mans' point of reference, whereas to God, Who supposedly exists under no constraints of time, it would be instantaneously.
Thus I tend to not trust an objective interpretation because that is a matter of faith, and faith, like love, and thought, are intangibles subject to each persons biases and agendas.
Rather, one has to look at it outside the box and come to their own subjective interpretation which may or may not be the same as the next persons interpretation, thus it is dubious at best.
Last edited by xmas1997; 10-17-2013 at 12:56 PM.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B makes an attack on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Again, that isn't really an answer.
I will assume you will not ever answer it.
The answer to that question is:
If your position relies on logically flawed arguments to sustain itself you are admitting you are not considering the topic in a rational, honest way.
Logically flawed? How is it logical to believe that everything on this earth is an accident? Fish made its way to land and became a mammal? Well I'll be damned, it just so happens that plants that are edible appeared for early mammals to survive. We sure are lucky to have cows. And water? Let me guess it came from an asteroid? Scientist DO NOT know how water got to earth yet they know how life evolved? Give me a break.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics
Not really an answer either.
The answers to your questions are:
Because truth matters to them, and they don't, generally, that I have seen.
I don't assume you are an idiot.
I am not preaching to you, merely asking you to think for yourself. Don't take my word for anything.
I have given you the links to evaluate this one, easy to understand, claim. I am not asking for more than a few minutes of your time to read. The longer you don't answer them, the more dishonest you appear. I assume you are generally an honest person. The easy way to be true to yourself is to simply answer the questions.
Here they are for the forth time:
Is the earth an isolated system?
Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-17-2013 at 01:21 PM. Reason: readability
Evolution claims that natural selection is the "organizer" that keeps the beneficial mutations and eliminates the harmful. But, how would natural selection recognize a beneficial mutation when a series of mutations are required to produce a beneficial change? For example, evolution teaches that bones from reptiles' jaws evolved into the bones in mammals' middle ears. These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles chew when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear? How would early mammals hear before the bones in their middle ears were properly connected? Natural selection most likely would have eliminated the transitional forms long before they had developed enough to have a hearing advantage. Likewise, a reptile whose front legs were evolving into wings would be crippled and easy prey until [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]the wings[/COLOR] were fully functional.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1670655.html
Water is fairly common in the universe.Asteroid Crashes Likely Source Of Water On Earth, Scientists Say
Asteroids from the inner solar system are the most likely source of the majority of Earth's water, a new study suggests.
The results contradict prevailing theories, which hold that most of our planet's water originated in the outer solar system and was delivered by comets or asteroids that coalesced beyond Jupiter's orbit, then migrated inward.
"Our results provide important new constraints for the origin of volatiles in the inner solar system, including the Earth," lead author Conel Alexander, of the Carnegie Ins ution of Washington, said in a statement. "And they have important implications for the current models of the formation and orbital evolution of the planets and smaller objects in our solar system."
Alexander and his colleagues analyzed samples from 86 carbonaceous chondrites. These primitive meteorites are thought to be key sources of the early Earth's volatile elements, such as hydrogen and nitrogen.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/Black Hole Hosts Universe's Most Massive Water Cloud
in a galaxy 12 billion light-years away resides the most distant and most massive cloud of water yet seen in the universe, astronomers say.
Weighing in at 40 billion times the mass of Earth, the giant cloud of mist swaddles a type of actively feeding supermassive black hole known as a quasar.
Among the brightest and most energetic objects in the universe, quasars are black holes at the centers of galaxies that are gravitationally consuming surrounding disks of material while burping back out powerful energy jets.
"As this disk of material is consumed by the central black hole, it releases energy in the form of x-ray and infrared radiation, which in turn can heat the surrounding material, resulting in the observed water vapor," said study co-author Eric Murphy, an astronomer with the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California.
It is not altogether difficult to fathom that water might be in the primordial solar accretion disc.
, all sorts of organic compounds are floating around in space.
Water is so vital to our survival, but strangely enough, we don’t know the first thing about it—literally the first. Where does water, a giver and taker of life on planet Earth, come from? When I was in junior high school, my science teacher taught us about the water cycle—evaporation from oceans and lakes, condensation forming clouds , rain refilling oceans and lakes—and it all made sense. Except for one thing: None of the details explained where the water came from to begin with. I asked, but my teacher looked as if I’d sought the sound of one hand clapping.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz2i0PiT1mw
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics
Again not an answer.
Not going away.
For the fifth time:
Is the earth an isolated system?
Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?
“ Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[135] ”
No and No, and I will ask what led to plankton? Lemme guess, it came from an asteroid?
Evolution is under discussion.Fallacy: Red Herring
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Where water comes from is introduced as relevant.
Evolution is abandoned.
The specific origin of water on earth is irrelevant to the topic of evolution.
If it makes you happy:
We are still debating about how exactly water got on the earth. There are several theories about the exact mechanics, but we have an overall general idea about how it happened.
That is two logical fallacies that I have bothered to point out. You are committing many more that I have not yet pointed out.
will we ever be able to test these theories? No, because just like the theory of evolution it is unable to be tested.
I'm coming into this with an open mind. But I have yet to see how anyone can believe this croc of .
Total horse
I really am. Science fascinates me. What I hate is that you are immediately discredited by the scientific community if you don't believe in evolution. Are there any scientist testing the theory or at least looking for alternative theories? No, simply because they are afraid of ridicule.
Gee, what other theories have the evidence to support it the way the theory of evolution does?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
