The Thinking Mans Thread - Evolution Schmevolution. No Offence to the Ladies.

[The Doctor]

We'd moved out of caves a long while before evolutionary theory came about

Indeed, however the attitude of we don't understand, so let's not bother doing anything would hold us back. For instance I think it was Werner Forssmann who didn't understand how the vascular system worked, so jammed a catheter (small camera) into his own arm and guided it down to his heart to take a look.

[The Doctor]

Are you going to investigate it yourself then?

If I had the few billion years that it'd take then I would lock myself away from humanity and attempt to start life from scratch again, yes. As it is, others have worked on abiogenesis for us.

[Kitchandro]

Creationism is simply put the belief that genesis is a factual account - which requires evolution to be untrue. Which it isn't, and which is why creatards should be considered in the infancy of our species.

Are you sure? Or are you just exaggerating to make your point?

I don't know if genesis does specifically say that evolution didn't happen (I'll take your word for it if you say it does) but I thought creationism just meant you believed in a higher power creating our universe? And not specifically in the way it is portrayed in the bible (or the differing ways it is portrayed in other religious books)? Apologies if that I've got the wrong end of the stick.

[Jaspa]

Creationism is simply put the belief that genesis is a factual account - which requires evolution to be untrue. Which it isn't, and which is why creatards should be considered in the infancy of our species.

Its this holier than thou stuff that really annoys me

All people are doing is pondering without hurting anyone and you come out with stuff literaly to make out youre superior and fail to even acknoledge why some people ask questions of things, something an 'Evolutionist' should fundementally understand.

If it isnt hurting anybody, leave it alone

[The Doctor]

Are you sure? Or are you just exaggerating to make your point?

I don't know if genesis does specifically say that evolution didn't happen (I'll take your word for it if you say it does) but I thought creationism just meant you believed in a higher power creating our universe? And not specifically in the way it is portrayed in the bible (or the differing ways it is portrayed in other religious books)? Apologies if that I've got the wrong end of the stick.

Genesis doesn't specifically say it doesn't (the bible was written near enough 1700 years before evolutionary theory properly came about after-all), but it requires us to believe that all animals existed as they are now from the beginning - which is in direct contradiction with evolutionary theory.

Its this holier than thou stuff that really annoys me

All people are doing is pondering without hurting anyone and you come out with stuff literaly to make out youre superior and fail to even acknoledge why some people ask questions of things, something an 'Evolutionist' should fundementally understand.

If it isnt hurting anybody, leave it alone

I understand why they'd question it, however I don't understand why they'd ignore the answers.

As for not hurting anyone, I disagree that it isn't - the sort of thought that goes into accepting it is to suggest that completely unverified tomes from several centuries ago are a suitable alternative to the "hypothesis, gather evidence, throw hypothesis out of window and come up with new one, gather evidence, adjust hypothesis....gather evidence, find it supports hypothesis" way that science works. And it just isn't - unverified tomes are not a suitable alternative to investigation when it comes to learning things, the idea that it is is harmful to humanity and our progress.

[Kitchandro]

Indeed, however the attitude of we don't understand, so let's not bother doing anything would hold us back. For instance I think it was Werner Forssmann who didn't understand how the vascular system worked, so jammed a catheter (small camera) into his own arm and guided it down to his heart to take a look.

And fair play to that guy, but he had his arm with him. Going back to the inception of the universe is a bit more difficult.

I see what you're saying but I'm not sure why anyone would want to spend a load of time thinking about it. When you're talking about things like that, the likelihood of us ever finding out during this life is minute. And even if we did, the information may well be useless to us.

I mean, where would you start? Invent a time machine maybe (even that is mind boggling). But then what?

[Zingari]

Indeed, however the attitude of we don't understand, so let's not bother doing anything would hold us back. For instance I think it was Werner Forssmann who didn't understand how the vascular system worked, so jammed a catheter (small camera) into his own arm and guided it down to his heart to take a look.

I was only kiddin doc of course we need to strive to keep finding things out , but I really think this one is too big to ever really understand fully .

OK we can see evolution and even possibly prove that it's real , but its a massive leap then to try and explain the whys and hows.

And its these questions that are the hardest . If you feel they are answered by science that's fine , if someone else feels that religion answers the question that's fine with me too .

[Jaspa]

Genesis doesn't specifically say it doesn't (the bible was written near enough 1700 years before evolutionary theory properly came about after-all), but it requires us to believe that all animals existed as they are now from the beginning - which is in direct contradiction with evolutionary theory.

I understand why they'd question it, however I don't understand why they'd ignore the answers.

As for not hurting anyone, I disagree that it isn't - the sort of thought that goes into accepting it is to suggest that completely unverified tomes from several centuries ago are a suitable alternative to the "hypothesis, gather evidence, throw hypothesis out of window and come up with new one, gather evidence, adjust hypothesis....gather evidence, find it supports hypothesis" way that science works. And it just isn't - unverified tomes are not a suitable alternative to investigation when it comes to learning things, the idea that it is is harmful to humanity and our progress.

By your own philosophies on evolution, the strongest idea would surely win in time. Attacking a few lads sat infront of PCs with small ideas about big things isnt going to achieve much.

Just hold down a debate with these people and dont just slag them off, same you Empty(Even though you havent done it anywhere near as much)

[Rincewind]

When I saw thinking mans thread I was expecting another pro-evolution thread. It should be retitled I do not want to think thread.

[Kitchandro]

Genesis doesn't specifically say it doesn't (the bible was written near enough 1700 years before evolutionary theory properly came about after-all), but it requires us to believe that all animals existed as they are now from the beginning - which is in direct contradiction with evolutionary theory.

Ok, so is it possible to be a creationist and not a Christian?

[Zingari]

By your own philosophies on evolution, the strongest idea would surely win in time. Attacking a few lads sat infront of PCs with small ideas about big things isnt going to achieve much.

Just hold down a debate with these people and dont just slag them off, same you Empty(Even though you havent done it anywhere near as much)

I think the doc is very passionate about his subject and sometimes comes across in the way that looks like he's attacking or slagging off other posters , but i'm fairly sure it's just enthusiasm to get his points across .

[Zingari]

Ok, so is it possible to be a creationist and not a Christian?

I'm fairly sure you don't need to be a "christian" , but you would need to believe in a creator , so you'd need a belief in some sort of god i suppose.

[Rincewind]

The creator is the big bang which randomly spew out the ingredients to form life.

[Zingari]

sounds reasonable to me !!

[MooseBreath]

I don't see any legitimate reason for not believing in evolution, but equally science can not yet explain the origins of the universe, so I don't see any legitimate reason to rule out a 'creator' either. I think all established religions are mumbo jumbo obviously, but the existence of evolution does nothing to disprove that there may be a 'god' of some kind.

[whoareyaaa]

The creator is the big bang which randomly spew out the ingredients to form life.

Where did the big bang come from though? where did it get the ingredients for life from?

Obviously Im not expecting you to answer that as no one knows.

[Rincewind]

True noone knows but it's a better answer than God did it.

[Zingari]

True noone knows but it's a better answer than God did it.

Why ?

If you don't know , why not just say " we don't know"?

[Rincewind]

I'm not saying I do not know about the Big Bang, I am 99.9999999999 recurring sure about that. The question was where did the ingredients come from? They just came how I haven't the faintest idea and it does not matter.

[whoareyaaa]

I'm not saying I do not know about the Big Bang, I am 99.9999999999 recurring sure about that. The question was where did the ingredients come from? They just came how I haven't the faintest idea and it does not matter.

Surely this is one of the main goals for science though?

[MooseBreath]

I'm not saying I do not know about the Big Bang, I am 99.9999999999 recurring sure about that. The question was where did the ingredients come from? They just came how I haven't the faintest idea and it does not matter.

That's your "better answer than god did it"?

[leicsmac]

I'm not saying I do not know about the Big Bang, I am 99.9999999999 recurring sure about that. The question was where did the ingredients come from? They just came how I haven't the faintest idea and it does not matter.

Good grief, I repeat myself so often on this particular question on here I may as well save a copy to cut and paste in future.

As a cosmologist, this is my take, lifted wholesale from a previous post:

'What happened before the Big Bang is temporally irrelevant to us anyway.

Our concept of time (chronology being a totally human construct, by the way) began with that first expansion event, and so to try and theorise what happened 'before' is irrelevant as there WAS no 'before' - not in the way we comprehend, anyway - and it's impossible to interact with or observe any evidence for it in any way. All we have is a reasonable idea of what happened from about 10^-40 seconds after the Big Bang, and many physicists are spending their careers pushing that time envelope further and further. But we'll never get to the event itself, much less 'before' it...as there was no 'before'.

And this goes the same for the event that 'caused' the Big Bang too. Could have been anything, but it's actually not possible to find out or to comprehend.

It's similar to the reasonably verifiable fact that the Universe is actually far bigger that what we can see, due to the speed of expansion at the start of the Big Bang being faster than light (speed of light is related to one of the fundamental universal constants that was established JUST after the Big Bang, and these same laws are still broken today through black holes). We have a good idea it's out there, but we'll never be able to observe or interact with it as the light it possesses will never reach us (moving away from us at a relative speed faster than light). Hence, it's not really relevant to us - it's just something to note.'

[Rincewind]

I am not disputing any of that. I tried to keep my post short for a change and as I am not a cosmologist that is the best I can do.

[Zingari]

I don't read cosmopolitan either .

[leicsmac]

I am not disputing any of that. I tried to keep my post short for a change and as I am not a cosmologist that is the best I can do.

Sorry mate, replied to you before I realised we are basically in agreement. Not meaning to direct any dispute towards you - I should have checked. I apologise.

As for evolution...it's the strongest theory with the most evidence as to how humans came to be that we have right now, but that's not to say there may not be a discovery in the future that alters our view of that.

I do however take issue with those who would attempt to discredit the evidence for evolution based on the idea that we don't really know how life BEGAN on this planet (abiogenesis). They are two completely different spheres of influence.