So, what's the general consensus here on evolution?

[tom502]

The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that H. sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of H. erectus in Asia and H. neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that H. sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of H. erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

[shikitohno]

The theory of evolution is as much a theory to me as my beliefs are theory to non-believers that don't want to hear it. I believe in evolution of organisms, etc., but not physically in humans from what we supposedly were to what we are now... Not Darwin's Theory. In a world of science, proof/evidence and material.. evolution provides some of that, yeah. I have to have way more than that, though. Folks like me don't need evidence to justify believing in something by faith. Some people do. I understand that. And I never push that on anyone. I hate when hardcore bible thumpers get on me as well and I'm a Christian! Maybe people refuse to believe a scenario where there is a Creator and a Destroyer that works in their lives at every second and that they do have to choose between accepting an eternity in a heaven or hell? I mean, can you disprove Christianity as much as you can prove Darwin's Theory?

I'm not sure if this is the case here, but I'm just throwing this out for general clarification. So, if you already know and understand this, feel free to ignore it. The word theory has a much different meaning in a scientific context than it does in general use. When used in terms like the theory of evolution, theory means that the idea is generally true, but either has some gaps in the data (the Missing links of evolution) or hasn't been tested in all situations. It doesn't mean that the idea is just a conjecture. Technically, gravity as Newton explained it is only a theory and not a scientific law (something that holds true in all circumstances) because there are situations where it hasn't been tested. If I remember correctly, in the case of gravity it hasn't been tested in areas like black holes or at speeds near the speed of light that prevent it from being declared a law. And for what it's worth, it's impossible to totally disprove Christianity, or most religions really. Most religions are based on deities who are outside the laws of the universe. The only religions I'd say you could definitively disprove are the ones that say "on such and such a date, X is going to happen." Those get disproved whenever their predictions fail to occur.

[Roo]

I mean, can you disprove Christianity as much as you can prove Darwin's Theory?

No, but it is relatively easy, for those of an athiest disposition, to point out the perceived absurtity in subscribing to a worldview based on the oral traditions of Bronze Age Judaic goat herders, to borrow snupy's phrase. Despite my stance on Creationism and religious doctrine in general, I'm compelled to point out that I am a lifelong student of religion, and understanding the religious nature of humanity in all of its intricate and diverse variations through cultural experience, philosphical debate, the study of associated rites and rituals, its hitorical impact on the world's great civilizations, and the reading of religious texts is a fascinating and most worthy intellectual pursuit. What I also find amusing in this discussion is the many references to the cramming down the throats of Christian dogma experienced by our resident athiests, yet this thread is full of athiests chastising Christians for their beliefs and trying to convince them otherwise, myself included. At the risk of repeating myself, if the Judeo-Christian/Muslim divide ultimately results in world war with the employment of nuclear arms, and the myths devised by our kind to explain our beginnings and purpose on this rock are the ultimate catalyst for our self destruction, the irony would be so absolute and so devastatingly human that it would do no less than define our shortcomings as sentient and rational beings.

[bsd777]

There are few individuals who are geniuses in any and all fields. You've again missed the point entirely. Like I said, if you don't have anything new, it's simply spam you're posting. You've already made your argument about geniuses, and you already know why it's faulty.

I didn't miss your point. You contend, even though you've not read either, Coulter and Stein's opinions have no value because they are not experts in the field. I disagree with your premise. Perhaps you missed my point? They are geniuses who have researched the subject, far more than I and probably more than you, therefore their opinions do have merit. On the other hand, if you are correct and no opinion is ever valid, unless it comes from an "expert" in that field, what is the point of this discourse and who determines, who are experts. I wonder how many advances have been made by someone insiders dismissed as unqualified?

[bsd777]

No, but it is relatively easy, for those of an athiest disposition, to point out the perceived absurtity in subscribing to a worldview based on the oral traditions of Bronze Age Judaic goat herders, to borrow snupy's phrase. Despite my stance on Creationism and religious doctrine in general, I'm compelled to point out that I am a lifelong student of religion, and understanding the religious nature of humanity in all of its intricate and diverse variations through cultural experience, philosphical debate, the study of associated rites and rituals, its hitorical impact on the world's great civilizations, and the reading of religious texts is a fascinating and most worthy intellectual pursuit. What I also find amusing in this discussion is the many references to the cramming down the throats of Christian dogma experienced by our resident athiests, yet this thread is full of athiests chastising Christians for their beliefs and trying to convince them otherwise, myself included. At the risk of repeating myself, if the Judeo-Christian/Muslim divide ultimately results in world war with the employment of nuclear arms, and the myths devised by our kind to explain our beginnings and purpose on this rock are the ultimate catalyst for our self destruction, the irony would be so absolute and so devastatingly human that it would do no less than define our shortcomings as sentient and rational beings.

Great observation. The left often preaches tolerance and offers plenty for third world cultures, practices and religions but often offers little for Judeo/Christian religions or values.

Have you ever considered the possibility that we are like a science experiment that has been conducted many times? The creator passed down thoughts and principles he wanted to impart on his project, with full knowledge of likely outcomes and provided us with free will, because it would have been pretty damn boring otherwise. I've become more interested lately in Old Testament sections that many (you would refer to as nuts) believe prophasizes the final chapter. The parts about the tribes of Israel returning to their land and all nations turning on and opposing God's chosen people, the children of Israel. I'd read about this years ago, but could never imaging ALL nations attacking Israel, now, it's much easier.

[bsd777]

[QUOTE=justintempler;296513]Compared to Europe, we're in real sad shape over here./QUOTE]

It's the exact opposite. Europe is dying on many levels. Their populations are shrinking, they are, largely, in worse financial shape than the US and they are undergoing Islamification. The welfare state is unsustainable. It will die, the only question is how long it will drag on, how bad it will get before something breaks and where they choose to go from there. But I guess if your measure of shape, is a lack of faith, then yes, we are better off.

[shikitohno]

I didn't miss your point. You contend, even though you've not read either, Coulter and Stein's opinions have no value because they are not experts in the field. I disagree with your premise. Perhaps you missed my point? They are geniuses who have researched the subject, far more than I and probably more than you, therefore their opinions do have merit. On the other hand, if you are correct and no opinion is ever valid, unless it comes from an "expert" in that field, what is the point of this discourse and who determines, who are experts. I wonder how many advances have been made by someone insiders dismissed as unqualified?

No, it's not because they aren't experts. It's because of which publications you're citing. If Coulter or Stein publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, or even if they manage to publish a book that cites such papers, then it is appropriate to cite them for this debate. However, their works are largely not (if at all) peer-reviewed and don't make a habit of citing academic articles or literature. This is the point I was making, and the one that I've said you missed. Point me to a book by either that meets one of those two requirements, and I'll go purchase it and read it. However, if their sources are nothing but newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books that don't have academic sources for their claims (ie, they don't cite scholarly journals or academic literature.), then they have no merit as far as a scientific debate goes. Chances are, if it wasn't published by a scientific body or a college/university press, they don't meet the standards of research necessary to have any validity in a scientific debate.

the merciless dissection of a new paper in physics

That merciless dissection is what I'm saying their works are lacking. More importantly than being outside of their field, their work does not have to stand up to being reviewed by their fellow researchers of the subjects they are speaking of. Ann Coulter is published by a subsidiary of Random House and a conservative publisher put out her first book. These are not groups known for having the same standards necessary for publication as a scholarly journal or university's publishing division.

[Bigblue1]

My conSensus is it don't F#ckin matter....... Stop arguing over shit that makes no difference. You are being controlled and herded in like sheep. does it really matter what we come from? Live in the now man, everything else is inconsequential.

[Roo]

My conSensus is it don't F#ckin matter....... Stop arguing over shit that makes no difference. You are being controlled and herded in like sheep. does it really matter what we come from? Live in the now man, everything else is inconsequential.

Ah, Bigblue, but questioning our origins and the capacity to do so is a delightful and defining facet of the human condition

[Snusdog]

Also, dog, the situation you present basically gives us two equally hopeless options. It's impossible to know all things at all times, so you may as well say screw it in a rational universe. In the second situation, nothing can be known for sure, so again one may as well say screw it. So, I see what you meant about assumptions in the first post now.

How did I miss this!!!

Bingo shikitohno!!! You got it!!! That is it exactly!!!! That is exactly what I was trying to point out!!!!

And no……… it does not work…………...not on main street…………..not in the ivory towers of academia………..not in the lab…………..not anywhere.

And yet

It is the fundamental assumption upon which most theory rests (including evolution and creationism). See the problem?

We are seeking to build upon a failed foundation. The very notions that direct our understanding of what constitutes a fact, what measure we use to assess the significance of a fact, and how we see that fact in relation to other facts— has utterly forsaken us. It falsifies our findings to the point that if we are honest and consistent we will admit that we not only know nothing……….. but nothing is knowable.

But we do know things. Things are knowable. We experience this every day because we fudge on our assumptions. We do not follow them. They are a creed we profess, maintain vehemently, mock those who descent (with snide blasts about talking animals and Middle East goat herders) and then leave our contrived temple of modern sophistication and proceed to refute, abandon, and forsake our very creed. We proclaim the world to be one thing and then to live in that world, we must act as if it is wholly different than our proclamation.

Why? because our proclamation, our stated basic assumption leads to utter and absolute nihilism and futility

Am I the only one in the world with this knowledge? NO!! IT IS THE REASON WHY PHILOSOPHY NO LONGER ATTEMPTS METAPHYSICS. The failure is old news. We have moved on………. content to ignore the futility……………. Satisfied to build an illusion (why do you think Nietzsche railed so against the old metaphors that made the failed system seem solid and in place. The system has failed, Nietzsche said, tear it down and have the will to live in the flux).

But why perpetuate known futility? Why continue to base our ideas and thought on premises that will ultimately destroy them? Is a conspiracy? Is it a grand cover up? No it’s well documented and admitted in every field of study.

The reason is simply this: the solution is unbearable and unacceptable.

Begin with the triune God of Scripture (not a generic notion of god) and argue consistently from that premise (unbearable and unacceptable as it may be). Otherwise, close your eyes real tight……and keep saying it is not all nihilistic.

And shikitohno you get it……..you know it’s not all nihilistic…….of course it’s not. It’s not because the world is very different than these basic assumptions tell us it is.

The trick is- will anyone realize how utterly devastating and far reaching this Critique of Impure Reason is to all that we seek to build upon it.

[Bigblue1]

Ah, Bigblue, but questioning our origins and the capacity to do so is a delightful and defining facet of the human condition

Maybe I'm just pissed that the repairman showed up and my washer is still broken till next tuesday at least..... I agree it is good to wonder but when it comes down to a pissing match between what I assume to be intelligent people whether we came from Monkeys or were conjured up by the big man in the sky I just have to wonder what difference does it make? We are alive now and there are many more pressing issues at our feet. I mean.... what do I mean.... I'll tell you what. I think it is way more important that we aren't relying on government money to survive. That we learn to be self sufficient. that maybe we get a lil more agrarian maybe we stop trying to be so intellectual for the sake of becoming a little more self sufficient.... I don't know maybe I'm crazy... could be ,but I am really concerned for us all. That is all for now..... I guess....

[bsd777]

Maybe I'm just pissed that the repairman showed up and my washer is still broken till next tuesday at least..... I agree it is good to wonder but when it comes down to a pissing match between what I assume to be intelligent people whether we came from Monkeys or were conjured up by the big man in the sky I just have to wonder what difference does it make? We are alive now and there are many more pressing issues at our feet. I mean.... what do I mean.... I'll tell you what. I think it is way more important that we aren't relying on government money to survive. That we learn to be self sufficient. that maybe we get a lil more agrarian maybe we stop trying to be so intellectual for the sake of becoming a little more self sufficient.... I don't know maybe I'm crazy... could be ,but I am really concerned for us all. That is all for now..... I guess....

You are 100% correct, except that I (being one of two people actually posting anything positive about Intelligent design) take a little offense to the notion that I am the other side of a pissing contest, taking the "big guy" in the sky position. My position all along has been, the monkey stuff is an unproven theory and Intelligent design (another unproven theory) is worthy of consideration. I've suggested good reading on the topic but, the guy who is pissing, says neither is worth reading because they weren't written by tenured professors. Hope you get the washer fixed soon. Is it not spinning?

[Bigblue1]

It's not doing what it's supposed to that's all I know. So we wait. go to the laundromat for the first time in years... I hope they still have fluff and fold by the pound....

[Roo]

bsd777, Ann Coulter is not a good reference on the matter, regardless of her book's content, or how well you received it, or however informed her argument. This much has to be understood. It's like discussing US foreign policy with a guy who insists that the debate cannot proceed until his opponent reads up on the pertinent works of Henry Rollins or Iggy Pop. No one is going to read the Coulter book. Toss us an excerpt or something for God's sake.

[Bigblue1]

I hate ann coulter as much as I hate allan combs. **** all these stupid ass hat pundits.... real hard;;;;;;