Since the thread closed while I was out watching soccer games, I'd like to add something.


Badassadam said; "But you yourself have never seen all the evidence. No one has i am pretty sure. You are going off of their word are you not? from what you read. I don't know, i really don't know enough in this area to defend any position. I spent a few years in college and am no scientist by any means. Would be interesting to have them prove something to me that i had no knowledge of through evidence and scientific process. Like convince me of evolution right in front of me and not on a video. Have it makes sense to me that i evolved from all of the animals on the planet. Evolution says we came from animals so why when i see a tiger it makes no sense to me that i came from it or any other animal. Why aren't the monkeys evolving into anything right now? They stayed monkeys while we became humans? It's weird to think about but i don't believe in creationism either. Like they appeared from a master designer. So what is the truth? Not sure."


I would just like to point out that there is lots of evidence for evolution in museums around the world. All you need to do is visit (one of) them. There is also evidence AGAINST young Earth creationism in the south west of the USA. There are trees in California that are older than the supposed age of the earth. I myself have seen trees that are over 9,000 years old on an island off Yemen.

There's plenty of evidence if you are willing to look for it.

Also, it makes no sense to say "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys". No scientist will ever tell you that the people you have today descended from the monkeys you have today. We descended from a common ancestor who was neither a present-day human nor a present-day ape.

Just like the USA descended from England, but not the England of 2018, as it were.

We can never know or see or experience everything first hand. So you have to develop a system for how you can develop trust and reliability. The best system we have developed is the scientific method.

In many ways science is provisional. It is always subject to revision upon better evidence. When speaking to lay people scientist use terms like "we know that blah blah blah". The more technical speech would be along the lines of "the experiments have surpassed the confidence intervals for reliability."

In similar ways when we trust someone else we're applying our confidence interval to their confidence interval. The further removed we are from the source of information the less reliable we must consider it. If it's a brand new person they're given less confidence than someone who has developed a reliable reputation for quality information in their areas of expertise.

Certainty is an illusion based in faith. Evolution did not reward abilities to know for certain. Our senses are sloppy shortcuts that were sufficient to aid in survival and reproduction. Not perfect observation systems. We're also discovering the same is true of our consciousness. It is not a system for carefully knowing truth. Mostly it operates to reinforce biases that were effective enough to survive until reproduction.

Evolution rewards the four Fs. Food, flight, fight, f... uhmm procreation.

That we pursue knowledge is starting to divert regular norms of evolution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2018 02:17PM by dogblogger.

You kind of blew my mind with some of what you said like our concsiousness is not designed for carefully knowing truth or something along those lines. That's a huge statement that i have never heard before but it makes sense. No one really is meant to know all truth or is even capable of discerning all truth is what came to my mind.

Scientists have beliefs, but those beliefs are always changing. All beliefs are subject to change based on new evidence.

Religions rely on beliefs that don’t change, so they had better not be subject to evidence the way Mormonism is.

"Just like the USA descended from England, but not the England of 2018, as it were."

Great analogy. I'm going to steal it. :)

Someone on this BB once used the analogy below to counter the "if humans came from apes why are there still apes" argument......

If we descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

I liked that one.

If man was created from mud, why is there still mud?
If woman was created from a rib, why do I still have all my ribs?

Surely we can think of a lot more. And better ;)

Visitors Welcome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If man was created from mud, why is there still
> mud?
> If woman was created from a rib, why do I still
> have all my ribs?
>
> Surely we can think of a lot more. And better ;)

I think i was created from mud and i think some would agree haha. That's a horrible thing to say about oneself but oh well.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think i was created from mud and i think some
> would agree haha. That's a horrible thing to say
> about oneself but oh well.

Well, to use your own words, that can't be true because "it doesn't make sense to me, it just doesn't feel right..."

;)

Hahahaha well said and well played.

I couldn't follow that whole conversation on crystals earlier.

What's that? Are you into alternative medicine or something now?

Visitors Welcome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldn't follow that whole conversation on
> crystals earlier.
>
> What's that? Are you into alternative medicine or
> something now?

Weeeeeeell lets just say i am trying it out. Just want to see if it can help in any way to what i am already doing.

If God invented ribs, why did it take Man to invent barbecue sauce?

Or you could say you are not descended from your cousin. Both you and your cousin are descended from your grandmother.

a nonny mouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or you could say you are not descended from your
> cousin. Both you and your cousin are descended
> from your grandmother.

But my cousin would have to be the monkey for sure and i would be the human haha.

It's like this ...


http://scienceline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/8071046027_c2680c528d_z.jpg

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's like this ...
>
>
> http://scienceline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/
> 8071046027_c2680c528d_z.jpg

Hahaha that cracks me up. There should be a final picture of a guy looking down on his phone.

We came full circle back to the monkey after all. De-evolution or something.

Evolution simply means change. It doesn't mean change for the better, faster, bigger or smarter. Creatures can evolve to become slower, smaller or whatever is better suited for their environment.

That's why we have flightless birds and lots of animals that don't know how to swim, although all animals descend from ancestors that swam.

I see, but why are there sharks still if they evolved from them haha jk.

If Man evolved from monkeys, why are there still bananas?

So we can make banana cream pies, of course!
I thought everyone knew that...?

:)

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I don't have much faith in Academians who pretend to be Scientists (which is almost everyone who calls themselves a "scientist") for the very simple reason that they are just in it for the money, For instance look at the man made climate change line, and the monkey man theory, we keep hearing:

What would happen if they developed evidence that the earth was better for being warmer?
Or that humans have nothing to do climate change?
or what if the earth has always been changing anyway?
What if they question the foundation of their very beliefs?

This is what would happen: they'd be laughed at for standing up for their actual beliefs, they'd be fired on the spot, the government would pull funding from their special projects, They'd have to go out and get real jobs.

It's too horrible for those who rely on government money and power for their self esteem, they'd have an existential crisis.

Oh wait--

You were serious. . .

I know it's full on satire to believe this administration pushes for an understanding of the consequences to human caused climate change.

I wish it were likewise satire to say that the vast majority of scientists are corrupt and that the money only works in one direction. Yet we hear that.

In short, anno this week thinks there is more profit in criticizing the oil industry than in praising it. Because, doncha know, the oil industry is run by impoverished bleeding-heart liberals and the conservation lobby has all the financial clout.

That's where Soros and Koch and Gates and Zuckerberg made their billions: working for the World Wildlife Fund.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2018 06:25PM by Lot's Wife.

Oh yeah, the scientific cabal and illuminati!

I'm told they control the price of adult diapers, too.


Edited to add: That's why they want to save the rainforests.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2018 06:33PM by Lot's Wife.

So you think there might be an agenda with scientists because of a tie with government? I always think that but i am part of the small group that doesn't think we were ever told the truth once in our entire lifetime. From any direction.