These questions were derived from:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans
1) Lets say we did evolve from ape...why did we need to evolve? We have no fur, cant climb trees, aren't as fast and cant really survive in the jungle areas too long...It seems like we devolved in a bunch of ways?
All animals evolve, not just humans. As for needing to evolve, we don't need to. Evolution is a natural occurrence that must naturally occur in a system of genetic life that involves mutation and variance. Devolved? We're the most dominant species on the planet. Some species are better at certain things than other species. The point is merely to adapt to your particular environment. Why do you assume things like speed, fur and climbing trees to be the endpoint(s) of evolution? Here's a hint, there is no goal of evolution. The traits that best enable the propagation of a species live on (natural selection). That's it.
2) Why is it that humans can basically eat ANYTHING, including apes....and apes are strictly plant life?
Apes are omnivores; ie, they eat both meat and vegetation.
3) Since a species is commonly defined as a group that can interbreed, it seems like fossils could never be identified to the species level because we can't observe how they interbreed. How do scientists determine what species a fossil is if it looks similar to another fossil but is a different size or slightly different shape? When scientists disagree with the classification of a fossil, who decides where it belongs?
What you described is called morphology. The answer to the question, at least in part, is DNA. Morphological features are utilized in combination with DNA evidence to assign the place in the taxonomy. That's about all I can say here. You'd be much better served speaking to a paleontologist.
4) The human nose has a prominent bridge and an elongated tip which is lacking in the apes, and man's arms are very short in comparison to the arms of monkeys and apes. The arms of apes hang down to the ground and like its legs, are used for transportation...quick movement & climbing...another de-evolution?
See answer 1. Stop thinking of evolution as though it has an endpoint.
5) Human babies are far more helpless and dependent on their parents than any of the infants of apes and monkeys...What's up with that? Baby apes can move and climb very well only after a few weeks.
The fetal stage in humans is not complete at birth, that's why. Our brains/skulls get too large, so we are born earlier to compensate. Otherwise, we couldn't make it out of the birth canal.
6) If it is inaccurate to say that humans evolved from apes, but instead we should say all apes and humans have a common ancestor, what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape?
Okay, so if you know this, why did you phrase it differently in the beginning? Anyways, why do you equate looking like something with being that something, yet earlier you stated that fossil's can look similar to others fossils? Your question makes no sense. You say we descended from an ancestor that we have in common with apes, yet what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape? That's inconsistent. You're not actually saying what was it, but rather, what did it look like. You are making the vague implication that if it looked like an ape, it must have been an ape? Huh? Do you even know what you are asking here?
Anyways, isn't it quite obvious? You'd assume that they looked like a cross between humans and the other great apes to whom they gave rise.
7) Why is it that only apes evolved like we have? Why is it that we are the only ones that can split the atom, create gorgeous symphonies and 'I Have a Dream' Speeches, map & conquer the galaxy? It seems like only man is free to make real choices, and it's not like we are the only smart ones...Animals are free to do what they are instinctively programmed to do or what they have been trained to do. Men can make plans and decisions and choose a course of action....but how did we evolve to be THIS smart and THIS free?
Why is it that only cheetah evolved like they have? Why is it that they are the only ones that can run so fast? It seems like only cheetahs can run so fast. Cheetahs can run SOOO fast....but how did they evolve to be THIS fast?
Do you get my point? I hope so. Anyways, the answer is simple: prefrontal/frontal cortex.
8) Why is it that only men are able to train and tame other animals?
We're not. For example, ants can herd aphids.
Explain to me why there is ORDER in the universe?
ReplyDeleteAnd with that, how did something come from nothing(the Big Bang theory)?
What is PURPOSE of life?
Millions of incredible species on the planet, but only ONE(man, who isn't even THE majority), who has dominion over them all- Why? What is that spark that allows man to "think / creative / dominate", but NO OTHER LIFE can on this planet?
And why does this 'spark' that's ONLY in man, separates man from ALL other creatures living(past to present)?
I can go on, but just 'Riddle me those'(without any personal ad hominem attacks on people of faith) Batman.
.
Are you actually going to return and dialogue with me?
ReplyDeleteIf so, I will be glad to address your questions. If you don't respond, then I saved myself some time.
I'll check back from time to time, as these type discussions are a good time waste for me, plus I'm a open person and doesn't claim to know everything.
ReplyDeleteLet's take it one at a time.
Starting with explaining why there is ORDER out of CHAOS in the universe. I have yet to hear a atheist explain that one credibly, and the 'it just took a long time' response just doesn't cut it.
(by the way, I'm not one of those anti-evolutionists, I'm a reasonable person)
.
Okay, cool, let's do this :) It's going to be a slow process though, be warned. I like to be careful. Starting now. What do you mean by order, exactly. Give an example or two.
ReplyDeleteI'm not stalling btw, I like to know exactly what is meant by the things I am supposed to explain away.
To me, ORDER meaning the delicate balance of Life itself, nothing in particular.
ReplyDeleteThe TYPE of PRECISION that is required - beginning on the quantum level, all the way up to a massive(and VERY destructive & galaxy destroying) quasar in the seen universe.
That delicate, PRECISE balance of life that some random act(such as a big bang) just COULD NOT produce even with a billion billion, TRILLION tries.
I won't even get into SUSTAINING said life(that's a whole another discussion).
In other words, if you closed & opened your eyes(over and over), how long will it take before a Audi R8 appears,
in your bathtub...
AND with your name...
plus TTL...
WITH a full tank of gas.
Such is the thought(for many people of faith) with atheists, that nothing from nothing = ALL THIS?!?
Really? Then that requires me to take a leap of *gasp*, FAITH?!
:-)
.
If I am getting what you are saying, the big bang has nothing to do with it. The Big Bang is simply the expansion of supercondensed matter- that's it. The principle that more closely speaks to what you are getting as is the anthropic principle. Ever hear of it? It's the idea that an observed universe must, by definition, be such that is conducive to life, and thus the conduciveness to life cannot be offered forth as any special evidence since it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have an observed universe that WASN'T such that life was possible.
ReplyDeleteThe order you see is simply a way of things that is such that life and other processses are possible. Of course things seem balanced, and work 'perfectly' to allow for life- they HAVE to if the life that is there to observe said universe is to exist. This cannot be used as evidence of anything, since no alternative is possible.
Now, to the rest of your original comment:
And with that, how did something come from nothing(the Big Bang theory)?
This is NOT what the big bang theory states. Read above.
What is PURPOSE of life?
Do you know there is one? From where is purpose derived? By whom?
Millions of incredible species on the planet, but only ONE(man, who isn't even THE majority), who has dominion over them all- Why? What is that spark that allows man to "think / creative / dominate", but NO OTHER LIFE can on this planet?
This is wrong. Different species excel at different things. Try outrunning a cheetah, outswimming a shark or wrestling a lion XD.
It's about survival and adaptation, and each species that lives is adapted to their specific environmental and selective pressures.
As for thoughts, other species have been demonstrated, in scientific study, to use reasoning processes.
And you know what? Even if we did have dominion or w/e, so what? How does this dominance necessitate the existence of a god?
Is your evidence for god really just the feeling that life is ordered, there is a purpose to it, and some anthropocentrism? That's not evidence, dude.
But where did that super condensed matter come from?
ReplyDeleteTHAT is the question.
And the anthropic principle is still a philosophical argument- plus it's one that tries to limit the discussion concerning the original question that you can't answer: ORDER.
Again, where did that Audi R8 come from?
Didn't man make that car? There was ORDER applied to it's creation no?
So yes I CAN use the ORDER of life as evidence of a Higher Authority, you can't subtract that from this discussion.
You have NO answer for it, so you 'try' to remove it from discussion.
Hey, I honestly do not want to get bogged down in a 'point by point' debate that ultimately will just be page after page of boring points / counter-points(it would be different if we were in a room speaking eye to eye), we'll never agree... But let me just say this:
I, don't have to 'prove' God(ORDER) to you for my faith to work for me, I've SEEN it work in my life.
Plus, evidence for me IS the balance of life(ORDER).
I see it everyday.
I read about it from 'learned men'(scientists and philosophers) everyday.
For me(and many, many others), this ORDER is all the proof a Higher Authority exists.
But you have to prove(thru science) to me, that there is no God(ORDER).
That is the role that the atheist unfortunately are in, in this world - period.
To tell me that what I've seen work in my life personally, isn't what I've SEEN it to be- is a 'up hill struggle' for you buddy.
So from where I stand, I still have seen no explanation from you that there is no Providential ORDER, it's just some ACCIDENT of life you seem to have 'faith' in, I don't buy it.
Give me PROOF, as the atheist 'require' people of Faith to present.
We therefore are in a stalemate: you are right in your views, and I am in mine.
This is why faith is key in this discussion about God(ORDER): you either have it or you don't.
I can't "prove" to you God(ORDER) exists Empirically(that will be of satisfaction to you anyway), & you can't prove scientific theories about the beginning of life / existence are 'gospel'(sorry, I had to go there, lol).
Using scientific 'proofs', you
(nor any scientist) cannot replicate the Big Bang(and how a living organism is created out of billions of degrees of heat over time).
So that 'theory'(and generally, to my point, ORDER) fundamentally requires you to 'accept it' face value, nothing from something = everything in existence.
i.e., 'FAITH', correct?
.
I;m not trying to remove anytihng from the discussion. I am merely pointing out that you are asking the wrong questions. For example, you ask:
ReplyDeleteBut where did that super condensed matter come from?
Is that the right question? Aren't you assuming creation when you ask this? Perhaps the more prudent question would be, was this matter always in such a state?
See, the way you phrased the question makes assumptions. It's like asking 'who created the universe?' That's the wrong question, because it assumes things that we just don't are true, manely, that there was a creation, and this creation was at the hands of a 'who.'
Do you see what I mean?
As far as your emphasis on order goes, I already asked you to explain to me how order necessitates the existence of a god. Apparently, you either ignored this request or didn't understand it. The problem you have is again unproven assumptions at the heart of your claims and questions.
For me(and many, many others), this ORDER is all the proof a Higher Authority exists.
But you have to prove(thru science) to me, that there is no God(ORDER).
That is the role that the atheist unfortunately are in, in this world - period.
This is a juvenile mistake, don't make it in future discussions if you don't want to be ripped apart. This is classic burden shifting, and it's 100% wrong. The burden is ALWAYS on those making the positive claim. Always. That's how courts work, that's how science works, and that's how any epistemiological conversation goes.
Your whole point is based on ignorance and misunderstanding. The real truth is, you can't prove shit, and you know it.
http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/01/atheism-is-religion-and-burden-of-proof.html
ReplyDelete"Your whole point is based on ignorance and misunderstanding. The real truth is, you can't prove shit, and you know it."
ReplyDeleteAh, and so begins the insults and cursing. :)
But I forgive you. Now on to your questions:
"Is that the right question?"
And so the atheist can pick and choose now, what is the 'right' question to ask, about something he / she can't even validate, or dismiss THEMSELVES?
That's rich.
"I already asked you to explain to me how order necessitates the existence of a god. Apparently, you either ignored this request or didn't understand it."
But I DID answer it, you just didn't like my response. Here it is again:
'Again: where did that Audi R8 come from?
Did man make that car? So, there was ORDER applied in it's creation, right? Not just some random 'convergence of molecules' that spontaneously exploded & appeared in the street.'
You may not have seen the EXACT man / woman that put it together, but you assume someone did.
In time, I believe I will meet the MAKER of say, that 'tree' in your yard, because you know, I feel creation has a CREATOR... Follow?
'Aren't you assuming creation when you ask this?'
If I believe in ORDER, then I believe in a a ORDER 'maker'... Don't you assume in a "maker" when you drive past a parked Audi R8?
'Perhaps the more prudent question would be, was this matter always in such a state?'
That is a possibility... But again, I don't have to know that Empirically, as I have my personal thoughts about a creator(remember that word FAITH), YOU on the other hand, have to rely on a scientific 'theory' - that you CANNOT even validate - Again, FAITH.
So - We're even?
'The burden is ALWAYS on those making the positive claim. Always. That's how courts work, that's how science works'
I'm not on trial for my FAITH(again, like I said, I don't have all the answers, just like YOU don't) - but if I were, you must live in France I guess, because here in America, the burden of PROOF falls on the Complaintiff, NOT the Defendant.
YOU(the Atheist) are the attackers of people of Faith. Know your role.
So YOU have to prove that my personal experience with my personal walk with God is 'some farce'.
I merely claim what I personally experience is real(as MILLION of other who VASTLY outnumber you also do).
So, you 'the accuser', can 'take that responsibility or leave it' my friend.
Again, my faith still stands.
.
"Is that the right question?"
ReplyDeleteAnd so the atheist can pick and choose now, what is the 'right' question to ask, about something he / she can't even validate, or dismiss THEMSELVES?
That's rich.
*sigh*
You're just not equipped for this discussion dude. Your answer is positively silly. You asked where the supercondensed mattter came from. I pointed out to you that this question BEGS THE QUESTION by implying that it CAME from somewhere.
Once again, YOU ARE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT MAKE IMPLICIT IMPLICATIONS ABOUT THINGS WHICH ARE NOT EVEN KNOWN YET!
THIS is why I am saying "is that even the right question." You are asking question B when answer A has not even been ascertained!
Now, your continual point about 'order.'
I asked you HOW does order necessitate the existsence of a god, and you just keep capitalizing the word order and asserting that it exists, but you are not answering the question. I also pointed you to the anthropic principle, which, if you understood what I was saying, would show you that the ONLY way you would exist to assess the state of things is if things were ordered enough for you to exist in the first place! That order CANNOT be used as evidence of any explanation regarding origins!
THIS is why I got frustrated. You are missing the point. Again. Like the burden of proof point. Again, you're missing the point! YOU are making the positive claim (ie, existence). This NECESSARILY places the burden on you, just like the burden of proof on those claiming alien abduction is ON THEM, NOT the people who disbelieve them!
So YOU have to prove that my personal experience with my personal walk with God is 'some farce'.
If you honestly think that's a fair and correct assessment of the rules of logic I don't know what more to say to you.
Btw, the order that you see everywhere is explained by evolution. And, once again, how does order necessitate the existence of a god?
Also, I'm sorry but you guys always use examples like cars and paintings and frankly, that's STUPID. We KNOW that cars are manufactured and paintings are painted. WE HAVE PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND EDIVENCE TO SUPPORT THIS. Do you KNOW how universes are formed? Where have you seen one formed before? YOU DO NOT AND YOU HAVE NOT! To equate the two is SILLY!
And btw, if order and creations need to hav ebeen created, who created your creator? Let me guess...he eternally exists, and needs no creator, right? SPECIAL PLEADING. It's a logical fallacy, look it up. Your views are based on a self imposed, unproven rule based on fallacious comparisons to things that are not analagous to begin with, and then your solution to this 'problem' CONTRADICTS the damn thing to begin with!
That is a possibility... But again, I don't have to know that Empirically, as I have my personal thoughts about a creator(remember that word FAITH), YOU on the other hand, have to rely on a scientific 'theory' - that you CANNOT even validate - Again, FAITH.
So - We're even?
Now, we're done. I'm not going to continue to converse with someone who doesn't even have to play by the rules of reason ang logic and who ONCE AGAIN assumes the very thing we're examining.
THIS IS WHY ATHEISTS GET ANGRY. You will go away from this discussion thinking "yet another atheist who started out nice but ended up angry and insulting" and think that is was unwarranted when the real issue is I am trying to have a discussion with you AND YOU AREN'T PLAYING BY THE RULES OF REASONED DISCOURSE!
THAT IS WHY WE GET FRUSTRATED!
Oh, and the Big Bang Theory has been validated. The expansion can be seen, and the cosmic background microwave radiation confirms it.
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you put the word 'theory' in quotations? Do you even know what the word theiry means in a scientific context? No, of course you don't, you have a middle ages understanding of science.
Hummm... Fully devolved into ad hominem and personal attacks. You've so disappoint me.
ReplyDeleteI would continue on, but what's the point? This has turned into something personal to you i see has now become boring.
And lol, and I see on your front page you're putting in the call for your gang of atheist buds to come join /chime in, I see.
Gangbanged by atheists... Now THAT'S Funny. XD
My time is up here, as I don't know what else to say - esp. to someone that's trying to apply logic to personal faith- And then blames the people of faith for HIS lack of vision / understanding.
...So now you and your lil atheist buds can continue on with those 'so cool' insults, and high-5'in each other now...
You guys are the landlords here, I was just passin' thru. Have a great atheist life.
God Bless. :)
.
I didn't specify atheists. A lot of theists read this blog. I was pointing this out for ANYONE to join.
ReplyDeleteYet another point missed by yours truly.
Don't give me your bullshit platitudes. You want to tell me off, so just do it.
Oh, one last thing:
ReplyDeleteI never said the Big Bang didn't happen- I fully see and understand it, because I personally believe the CREATOR made IT happen.
One day, I hope to ask the Father about it, and I'll do it for you. ;-)
Cheers.
.
I already know the answer: He had one too many chili burritos that evening.
ReplyDeleteDamn it, now I'm hungry. My hunger response was tripped instantaneously, once I though of a chili burrito.
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you what: Get Him to make a chili burrito appear before me and I'll sing His praises every day for the rest of my natural life.
My time is up here, as I don't know what else to say - esp. to someone that's trying to apply logic to personal faith- And then blames the people of faith for HIS lack of vision / understanding.
ReplyDeleteHe's right, you know, Mag. You shouldn't use that there "logic" and "reasoning" given to us by the super special "spark" that's totally unique to homo sapiens. Just turn your brain off, congregate in an arbitrarily special building once a week, listen to repeated recitations of 2,000-year-old writings that are definitely relevant to today's world and certainly don't hold us back as a species, and finish it up by pretending you're cannibalizing a cracker and some juice.
Because that's what people with "vision" and "understanding" do. ^_^b
certainly don't hold us back as a species, and finish it up by pretending you're cannibalizing a cracker and some juice.
ReplyDeleteI fucking salute this message.
A friend on Facebook posted this earlier today, and it reminded me of the little discussion that took place here because O'Reilly uses the same "lol there's order so God exists" "argument" (if you can even call it that). I thought it was funny...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M
hahaha I saw that video a wile back! So funny! He's so patronising lol
ReplyDeleteI find it funny how they do ask all these quesions and cite the teleological argument, yet they totally ignore dysteleology!! Even as magx01 noted, the anthropic principle eradicates much of the theistic argument :)