Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Considering the guy wasn't even remotely religious, idk what to tell youJDSN said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
FAIL: My friend said "why we still got monkeys?"
- Thread starter Mr.Squirrel
- Start date
- Status
bonesmccoy
Banned
bdizzle said:
It's a common mistake. Remind him that while our species our related, we actually have different progenitors. You don't have to be a dick.
Mario said:
If he's not religious these might work, otherwise they (& Dawkins) will not matter. The last one certainly will not. If they worked at all, there would be far fewer people believing what they believe.
Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. Most religious people accept the idea of evolution since it can be proven to some extent. The problem is that someone tries to include a completely unsubstantiated theory like abiogenesis into the mix that causes people to associate the two.
Abiogenesis is used as an explanation for how life got here from scratch which is not evolution's job. It's the most logical assumption for someone who does not believe in the idea of creation.
JGS said:
I am aware abiogensis and evolution are different which is why I provided an abiogenesis link and an evolution link (the last one provided skews towards that, though admittedly I could have chosen something more focused).
The reason why I provided links to videos addressing all three - big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution - is precisely because usually any evolution denier in a debate inevitably regresses through the "where did life come from?" and "where did everything come from?" questions, as demonstrated by the story in the OP.
Also, describing abiogenesis as "completely unsubstantiated" sells short a lot of research and discoveries already made around it.
Count Dookkake
Member
Why we still got Steve Harvey?
Canis lupus familiaris is a domesticated Canis lupus (started ~10-15k years ago).
Equalizing the wolf/dog relationship to man/"monkey" (i.e. chimp, gorilla, bonobo) is a critical flaw in your argument against intelligent design and for evolution, because a dog actually "evolved" (through human intervention) from a normal wolf.
CSI Miami yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.gif
Sorry, had to point it out to feel slightly less stupid than burning/installing my copy of Windows makes me feel.
Equalizing the wolf/dog relationship to man/"monkey" (i.e. chimp, gorilla, bonobo) is a critical flaw in your argument against intelligent design and for evolution, because a dog actually "evolved" (through human intervention) from a normal wolf.
CSI Miami yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.gif
Sorry, had to point it out to feel slightly less stupid than burning/installing my copy of Windows makes me feel.
Raist said:
well.. not really.. it is like a table saying it came from nothing, because it doesn't have the capacity to know it's creator
that is "their approach".. in your head it might sound like nothing, but it wouldn't to someone who believes in a higher power
I personally don't see why either science or religion has to be right and the other wrong.. makes much more sense to me to have a harmony between the two than picking one or the other.. I see science as a method by which we can determine which facets of religion are more superstitious/traditional and/or altered throughout history.. it would be silly for a religious person to ignore logical reasoning.
Always-honest
Banned
JosM88 said:
evolution wise.. wanting to stick your penis in a vagina makes more sense than thinking about the meaning of life.
tabsina said:
Well, on one hand you have science trying to explain that life keeps evolving, you have the abiogenesis theory, and the big band theory which does not say that there was nothing 15billion years ago, just that everything (space, time, energy, matter) was reduced to a single point that went kaboom.
I personally do not believe that it was like this forever (if the concept of time has any meaning here) and all of a sudden something happened. So there are many hypotheses as regards to what was before the big bang. The cyclic big bang/big crunch theory, the multiverse theory, or the fact that this single point of infinite energy is the far end of some kind of black hole, etc.
On the other end, you have religion saying that everything was created out of thin air by a "creator" whose existence is completely hypothetical. And when you refuse the concept that we came from nothing, how do you explain the concept of a creator who is at the origin of all things? Where does HE come from?
This is why I absolutely cannot understand that the whole "science says we came from nothing, that's BS!" argument.
Science and religion are not complete antagonists in my view. They're just two different approaches trying to answer the very same questions. But while religion asks you to accept unproven things, science tries to demonstrate facts.
And very much like two different theories in science confront and one ends up being the most likely (the other one being basically proven wrong - eg Darwinism vs Lamarckism), I do think that religion and science can't be both right.
However, because of their purposes and essences, science's job is NOT to purposedly demonstrate that religion is wrong, and religion's job is NOT to factually demonstrate the origin of life.
Raist said:
right.. though i'm a religious person, yet i would agree with a scientific point of view of how the universe was created.. i don't think religion ever suggests (literally, that is - not in parables like adam and eve) that the universe suddenly appeared, though that isn't to say that religious people don't think like that - the followers of religion are never perfect examples of what a religion actually states, so it is important to actually ask them for a verse in whatever holy scripture to see how they came up with this
anywho.. i don't feel like there is much more to say, since proof in religion and proof in science means two very different things, and it never has a happy ending discussing it in forums
give me an idea then. Our understanding you say? Evolution is a gradual process. Over the years there were mistakes. They had to be otherwise its intelligent desighn. Where are those mistakes? Where are the fossils? You can't tell me we've been able to find reptiles that are over 100 million years old yet human life forms, which are a few millenia old have been a no go.
Enlighten me, no, humor me. Am listening.
Enlighten me, no, humor me. Am listening.
Xdrive05
Member
jhenedo said:
Joke account? You need to learn about evolution before you have this conversation with anyone. I recommend the Berkeley Evolution Primer and TalkOrigins as a couple good resources to start with. Also, AronRa on youtube has some good material too, if you're not into the whole "reading" thing.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about if you think evolution has a "goal" and previous forms were "mistakes" that failed to reach that goal.
What? I don't think it's even possible to infer what you're trying to say here.jhenedo said:
Over the years there were mistakes? What are you talking about? What is a "mistake"? How would a "mistake" occur? Are you aware of the concept of natural selection? How could natural selection make a "mistake"?
We haven't found human fossils? What? Of course we have, and not just human but other, similar (sub)species.
Raist said:
I think we are not on the same page here. No one expects anything to revert. What we should logically expects is the transition to be gradual. A human life form did not just emerge with claws. Nor did it with a pair of eyes, a brain in the skull, a pair of legs a stomach a liver a heart a pair of hands all those came over time.
Natural selection they say. Survival of the fittest. What i am wondering and many others too, is where are the victims? where are the unfit?
Atramental
Banned
I guess that's why she's teaching English and not Biology...entrement said:
Wickerbasket
Member
Probably a joke account but I'll humor you:jhenedo said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
jhenedo said:
The problem is that you're asking for a "transition" between humans and birds.
This actually does exist. However, it happened so long ago that the common ancestor has absolutely no common features anywhere close to the immediatly recognisable features of a human and a bird.
What you're asking for would be this:
Red dashed line.
It is NOT possible.
Wickerbasket
Member
Poor show chap, poor show. Pip pip and all that.
Wickerbasket said:
Again, i think we got of on the wrong foot. When i say "fossils" i dont mean homoerectus like or all the other upright "human form" type fossils. I mean one showing a cross between analogous structures. If may put it this way, an intermediary between the human and reptile
Always-honest
Banned
you do tests with your friend to make him look stupid?Arthrus said:
Believe it or not, it's possible to be friends with people who aren't very smart. Every now and then it gets annoying, but they can still be fun!
Wickerbasket
Member
Well Raist's post explained it pretty well. The common ancestor of those probably looks nothing like either due to it being so far removed.jhenedo said:
Raist said:The problem is that you're asking for a "transition" between humans and birds.
This actually does exist. However, it happened so long ago that the common ancestor has absolutely no common features anywhere close to the immediatly recognisable features of a human and a bird.
What you're asking for would be this:
Red dashed line.
It is NOT possible.
Now this is what i like. An ANSWER!!! Thank you.
I will read more on it. But still raist, so long ago? Isn't it a little suspicious when you can find a fossil of a reptile that died before dinopocalyps(i mean the rock strike here lol) but not one that died supposingly a few millenia ago? just asking.
- Status