Has anyone else heard the news reports over the past several years that scientist have found human remains that are older than apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans proving that humans DID NOT evolve from these creatures?




Does anyone know where the human remains are being kept?

You know what this happens all the time.
IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING
If you think LOGICALLY about it, rather than reading biased propaganda, then you'll see how simple this is.

Evolution hypothesises that we are descended from APES.
Now APES are the overall genus of monkey rather than a particular species such as chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans.

No, have not heard that or seen that. It would be interesting though.

No, it doesn't prove anything.

Ultimately, we can only take what we hear as theories.

That is why I asked if anyone knows where the human remains are.

Researchers and scientists are known to do research to fit their needs for recognition or financial gain.

I did one Google search and found one article. I'm sure there are others. Some believe humans are 3/4 million years old and this article claims that the possible human remains are 7 million years old making humans older than monkeys, apes, gorillas, etc.

Skull shocker: a 7-million-year-old skull has scientists (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99554847.html)

Has anyone else heard the news reports over the past several years that scientist have found human remains that are older than apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans proving that humans DID NOT evolve from these creatures?
I have heard reports of finding remains as old as 5.8 million years old but they weren't actually comparable to today's humans. The oldest remains found that have almost identical features to modern humans are 160,000 years old and they were found in Ethiopia. I haven't read any reports that state that any of these remains are considered older than "apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans proving that humans DID NOT evolve from these creatures." Sorry. You need to find those reports and post them here.




Does anyone know where the human remains are being kept? I would imagine they are the property of the Ethiopian government and may be kept for analysis there, but I don't know with any certainty who currently is holding them or where.

Would like to hear from others.

I just read that article Dana. At the time that was written, they were still are arguing over whether it is actually an ancestor to modern day humans or apes. Without a pelvis or thigh bone, they can't be sure. I am not sure where you are getting your information that humans are older than apes. It doesn't mention that in the article. I think Ben is right, you need to leave out the separate species and stick with the genus of Ape vs Human.

I have heard reports over the years. There must be others who have too. Now with the internet, we might be able to get a clearer understanding of the claims

Of course, there is always going to be arguing and disagreement. Well, what will everyone do if their theories are shattered?

Still an interesting subject.

Anyone else have anything to add?

From what I am finding, scientists still aren't agreeing on whether it is an early human skull or an early ape skull, so it is still up in the air as to what it actually is. Here is another link I found regarding Toumai that has additional links in it. Fossil Hominids: Toumai (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html)

P.S. But it appears they are in agreement that it is not a modern day human skull.

The most recent opinion I can find says it was probably a common ancestor of apes and humans, probably not on the human side of the split from other apes. It was not bipedal, didn't have a big brain. In other words not very human. An ape this old might be ancestral to both humans AND apes. We are all one big family.

'Toumai man' is really a female ape, say anthropologists - Independent Online Edition > Science & Tech (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article132302.ece)

asking, from the stuff I was reading I was gathering that Michel Brunet, the anthropologist who found the skull was the only one arguing it was an early human ancestor. The rest of the scientific community's opinion is that it is an early ancestor of the ape. Since nothing else appears to have been written refuting the general consensus of the scientific community since 2002, we have to assume that it is as they believe -- an early female ape's skull. I am not a scientist but the picture does look like an ape to me.

Dana, the earliest hominid fossil I can find info on is one that is dated back 33 million years. Here is a link: Aegyptopithecus zeuxis Skulls (http://www.skullsunlimited.com/aegyptopithecus-zeuxis.html)
Do you think either Toumai, the one you found, or this one, looks like a modern day human? It seems that, so far, we only have proof that apes are older than modern day man. Since you feel "with the internet, we might be able to get a clearer understanding of the claims", I look forward to looking at the evidence you can turn up that disproves scientific theory.

Of course there are fossils older than apes, chimps, etc. That's because what is modern day apes, chimps etc are themselves evolved from earlier primates.

Nice try Dana, but this does NOTHING to disprove Darwinism.

asking, from the stuff I was reading I was gathering that Michel Brunet, the anthropologist who found the skull was the only one arguing it was an early human ancestor. The rest of the scientific community's opinion is that it is an early ancestor of the ape.

That's exactly my impression from a quick search. I think the discoverers wanted to be the discoverers of the oldest known hominin. I gather they got the media very excited back in 2002.

Once you get back before the split between the ape lineage and the human lineage, it's hard to say whether the thing you are looking at is the "ancestor of an ape" or the "ancestor of a human." It is both, just like a grandfather can be the ancestor of several sets of cousins. You can't say to your cousin, "No. He's my grandfather, not yours!"

Wikipedia discusses this at length here:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis)

Hello Dana:

Do you have a reason for NOT believing in evolution? I think most people who are as adamant as you are about these things, are afraid that if they're proven true, their entire religious belief systems go into the toilet.

Would that be you?

excon

excon makes an excellent point. Humans like all animals are territorial and will defend their territory/beliefs/livlihood at any cost even with lies.

Would that be you?
Hello again, Dana:

I'll take that as a yes.

excon

excon makes an excellent point. Humans like all animals are territorial and will defend their territory/beliefs/livlihood at any cost even with lies.
Your response appears to be stating that Creationists will lie to defend their beliefs. I doubt they will appreciate that sentiment.

Fortunately, humans, like many other social animals, also engage in cooperation and altruistic behavior, and they have a sense of right and wrong and of fairness. For example, some chimpanzees would rather refuse a treat than to get something not as good as another chimp is getting; they apparently think an uneven distribution is unfair. They'll act to make sure neither they nor the other chimp gets ANYthing. They are very into fairness! So, like chimps, humans also have an innate sense of fairness and of right and wrong. Many of us have been brought up to believe that lying is wrong. Most of us do not defend our territory "at any cost." whether that includes fighting or lying. Nobody here is lying to you, Dana. But you did sound as if you were arguing that lying was justified, as you feel something life threatening were at stake. What is it? Why not just ignore evolutionary biology if you don't like it the way you probably ignore modern cosmology, quantum physics, and geophysics (all scientific disciplines that conflict with the teachings of the Bible)?

But, Dana, I'm more interested in your idea that the question of how humans evolved is a question of "territory." Whose territory is this question? Do you believe that only certain people should be allowed to try to answer certain questions? Is that the idea? Do you feel you have the right to define the origin of species for all people, and that biologists--by explaining our origins in a way that's different from what you were taught--are encroachingn on "your" territory?

I'm seriously asking this. Does this question really feel like an issue of territory to you? I had never realized that before. I'll just say that it isn't a matter of territory for me. My feelings of territoriality related to my private property or, sometimes, ideas that I think are mine that someone else is taking credit for.

Obviously, how evolution works wasn't my idea. To me it's a matter of a common intellectual heritage that we all get to enjoy and share, something like a public park--like Central Park in New York, or even just a corner playground in a small town. I feel we are fortunate to have it and it saddens me that so many people are afraid to enter the playground and swing on the swings and slide down the slides, but I think that's their choice. What mystifies me is why they wouldn't want anyone else to go into the park. To me, if would be as if I were standing outside your church trying to stop people from going in,which I never would do.

Who can say why any animal is territorial. Maybe it was put in place as a sort of defence mechanism but humans make mud out of it with their greed and need for recognition.

Who is to speak for chimpanzes when it is based purely on observation and not on the actual opinion of a chimpanzee or any animal

Researchers and scientists are known to do research to fit their needs for recognition or financial gain. Hello again, Dana:

Living in a world where you think the accepted body of scientific knowledge is produced by people who are in need of those things, would be a scary place indeed.

How could you ever trust your doctor, or the medications he prescribes? How do you trust that you won't fall off the earth if you go in one direction too long? How do you trust the weatherman?

Is there some science you believe, but some you don't?

excon

Thought I'd add to the previous answer since I was in a hurry earlier

When I leave my house and don't take my dog with me, she response by running through the house and getting into any food she can get her mouth into. She doesn't do it in the same manner as when she is eating normally. She makes sounds unlike the quiet manner she eats otherwise. If I don't take her for walks, she either digs holes in the yard or tears up the stuffed animals. She also makes noises and pulls on my clothes or tugs at my hands when she wants me to take her for a walk.

Depending on the human, there could be different interpretations:

1) the dog is angry
2) the dog is frustrated
3) the dog is getting back at me (or some sort of revenge)
4) the dog's feelings are hurt
5) the dog is stressed
6) the dog is scared
7) the dog is anxious
8) the dog doesn't want to stay home alone
9) the dog wants his walk, etc

Since the dog can't write or speak, a human can only guess what she is feeling. Some humans don't even think animals have feelings and some go as far as thinking they don't feel pain. So researchers can only make conclusions about animals from observation.

I enjoy all opinions and I love to watch animal programs and scientific programs and I love learning and I love watching PBS. .

Nothing wrong with believing in nothing and nothing wrong with believing in everything.

I think there is something wrong if one becomes fanatical or takes everything as 100 percent truth.

I think it is healthy to be open to opinions.

But no one likes to be taken advange of out of greed. No need for anyone to have several cars sitting in their garage just for some sort of status and to have earned the money for those vehicles by excessive lying.


\But then again, lying is one quality that distinguishes humans from animals. Animals can't lie because they can't talk or write. But there maybe other reasons too.

Something's we know are true like a car can be used to drive to work in and a washing machine works for washing clothes in. Those are facts, but I don't spend my energy trying to figure out how it works. I might spend time in awe at human intelligence or human inspiration and how someone was able to put their thoughts to make such fantastic machines.

It is easy to ignore the truth and live ones life. No need to be fanatical about the truth either.

I enjoyed learning psychology,etc in college and taking tests on what I read, but I did not always take everything I read as fact. I have still been able to graduate from college and have a job and relationships, and use the internet, and have a normal lifeetc with this sort of thinking.

I enjoyed learning psychology,etc in college and taking tests on what I read, but I did not always take everything I read as fact.
I agree. For me, that is exactly how I approach anything that I read or that I am told by someone. That includes the bible and the theory of Creationism.

I don't think that I am going to fall off the earth either. Just because I have heard of the word "gravity" is not going to make me paranoid that I am going to fall off the face of the earth.

Ruby

You sound like you have a good and healthy head on your shoulder.

Having the ability to enjoy and have fun is very healthy.

One thing I did want to point out regarding your dog analogy: if you have a dog behaviorist/trainer that tells you "this is why your dog is acting this way, here is how you resolve the problem...." and if you apply the solution given, and the behavior is extinguished, what kind of conclusion do you draw from that?

FYI: Actually animals do deceive one another. There is a huge scientific literature on deceit by animals.

For example:


Charles F. Bond Jr.1 and Michael Robinson

(1) Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University, 76129 Fort Worth, TX

Abstract Deception has evolved under natural selection, as has the capacity to detect deceit. In this article, we describe the adaptive significance of deception in plants, fireflies, octopi, chimpanzees, and Homo sapiens. We review behavior genetic research to find that heredity affects human deceptiveness and theorize that genetically-transmitted anatomical features prefigure human success at deceit.

But no one likes to be taken advange of out of greed. No need for anyone to have several cars sitting in their garage just for some sort of status and to have earned the money for those vehicles by excessive lying.

Does greed have something to do with territoriality, lying, and evolution? Or has the subject changed? I'm a bit perplexed by the direction the discussion has taken. Maybe I didn't read closely enough?

Speaking of nature shows, have you watched the David Attenborough series on Birds? I think that is one of my favorites. Especially the Lyre bird that imitates a camera with a motor drive and a car alarm and even a chain saw! I used to live next to a mocking bird that imitated our neighbor's house alarm, which often went off when they weren't home. Our mocking bird sounded a lot like the lyre bird in this segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y

Ah asking! I think you have hit the nail on the head here in your post #26. I just read Dana's post on that other thread about Ape vs Man. I couldn't figure out what she was driving at until I read it. The fact is, there are some things that we can explain due to massive amounts of research and study. But, even if we do that, sometimes, being human, we are in error in our thinking. I read on another thread someone making a comment about a number of years ago, research showed that drinking coffee was bad for us and increased our risk for cancer. Now, they are telling us, in moderation, coffee actually is good for us. So, what conclusion can be drawn from that?

Although I don't doubt that the study you post above was done, how much other evidence is there to back it up. I am not trying to get into an argument with you here but just sharing my thought process. I actually do believe some animals are capable of deceit simply because I think it is rather egotistical for us, as humans, to assume we are the only ones on this earth capable of that. But, I don't need a report to tell me that. Also, what research has been done, and continues to be done, that governments have thrown an enormous amount of grant money behind that is so completely unnecessary? You know there are studies that are done that deserve Razzie awards for simply being a waste of time, energy, and money. AND, I think tying into what I believe Dana is saying on the other thread and here, is that there are some scientists who, purely for selfish reasons, whether for simple recognization, fame, money,. will falsify their research findings/information. You know that has been done. Sometimes they are caught, sometimes they aren't, or sometimes it takes years for this information to surface and the researcher has died not knowing that people finally caught onto him. So, I am gathering from what Dana is saying (and Dana correct me if I am wrong) that we shouldn't accept something that still has questions attached to it, as being the absolute truth. We shouldn't so vigorously & vocally defend our positions, getting into arguments with others simply because their position is different from ours and may be just as valid as ours.

excon makes an excellent point. Humans like all animals are territorial and will defend their territory/beliefs/livlihood at any cost even with lies.

You have posted several responses since this reply to excon's question. And for the life of me, I don't believe you ever answered his question. You danced around it and posted a whole bunch of extraneous stuff about teritoriality and others things. But you never answered his question. I wonder why?

Are you talking about this one Scott?
Hello again, Dana:

Living in a world where you think the accepted body of scientific knowledge is produced by people who are in need of those things, would be a scary place indeed.

How could you ever trust your doctor, or the medications he prescribes? How do you trust that you won't fall off the earth if you go in one direction too long? How do you trust the weatherman?

Is there some science you believe, but some you don't?

excon

I do like the post and the question.

Hello again, Ruby:

Nahhh. It was about the religious stuff. I too, wonder why she/he hasn't answered. It IS pretty obvious, no?

excon

PS> Dana, all things are equal. If you were able to prove your theory of God, then MY entire body of information would be destroyed.

Are you talking about this one Scott?


No I was talking about Post #14.

/.. there are some things that we can explain due to massive amounts of research and study. But, even if we do that, sometimes, being human, we are in error in our thinking. I read on another thread someone making a comment about a number of years ago, research showed that drinking coffee was bad for us and increased our risk for cancer. Now, they are telling us, in moderation, coffee actually is good for us. So, what conclusion can be drawn from that?

I agree that scientists sometimes make mistakes and sometimes even lie, but some areas of science are more prone to that than others. For example, nutrition research is often influenced by companies that sell certain products. So, like tobacco companies, they will fund research that casts doubt on whether their product is dangerous and pay researchers to study something and then not let them publish their results if the results are negative. (As far as coffee, it has been known for a long time that moderate coffee drinking is NOT dangerous. Because it is addictive, people just assumed it must be bad in some way, but it turns out not to be.)

Anyway, areas of science that attract a lot of grant money or hot shots--for example, certain kinds of medicine, I'm sorry to say-- are more likely to stimulate fraud as individuals think they won't get tenure or their grant renewed if they don't get positive results. If you guys are saying that greed stimulates such fraud and deception in science (as in other areas of life), I cannot disagree one bit. But, on the other hand, the more research is going on, the more likely that such fraud will be uncovered by other researchers--often very quickly--as happened when there was fraud last year by the Koreans studying stem cells. But in any area of science, fraud virtually ALWAYS gets uncovered sooner or later. And most people realize that and don't do it.

Then there are the backwaters of science, the kinds of things that people often think are not worth funding, but which get funded anyway--studying the behavior of octopuses or termites. This is called "basic" research because it doesn't have immediate, useful applications. But it is from basic research that nearly all the greatest discoveries have come. Isaac Newton wasn't studying gravity because he got a grant to develop something to cure a disease or make a better rocket. But his work got us to the Moon and created the knowledge base for thousands of discoveries and inventions that have benefited all of us. The other thing about basic research is it is much more likely to be honest, less likely to involve fraud or people who are saying something just to look good. It attracts the traditional scientist who is just curious. At bottom, these people are being paid to tinker and have fun. They don't usually get paid as much as the other kind of researcher, but they tend to be contented, honest individuals. And it is from them that we get the most amazing discoveries. I'm over generalizing, but I hope you get the idea. Generally, people who study evolution don't get big bucks and are not motivated by greed, and are not tempted to lie or engage in fraud. I'm not going to say never, of course. But I've never heard of that in evolutionary biology.


Although I don't doubt that the study you post above was done, how much other evidence is there to back it up.

Well, I have been studying or writing about biology all my life, so I'm just going to ask you take my word for the fact that many honest people have studied deception in animals. But I totally agree that it's reasonable to be skeptical. I'm very skeptical about the things I read. But I reserve most of my skepticism for research where someone has an axe to grind or someone is likely to make a lot more money if the answer is one thing than if it's another.



I am not trying to get into an argument with you here but just sharing my thought process.

I appreciate your polite manner. :) I agree. I don't like arguing either, although I do enjoy these discussions!

I guess I'd probably give the thumbs down to different studies than you would. But that's why lots of people make those decisions (what research to fund), because reasonable people can disagree. I think that a lot of medical research is a waste of time because they don't use enough patients to get significant results and they don't follow good procedures that ensure reliable results. It raises people's hope that there's a cure, when all that anybody wants to do is raise the price of some pharmaceutical stock, so they can sell their shares. To me that's not science. And I think way too much money (billions of dollars) gets put into very bad science that doesn't in the end, produce any results that help anyone. Instead of spending billions on cures for cancer, I think it would be good to take one-tenth of that money and put it toward finding out what Causes cancer. And I think a 5-year study of evolution in finches on the Galapagos Islands is WELL worth funding. But that's just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. :rolleyes:


So, I am gathering from what Dana is saying (and Dana correct me if I am wrong) that we shouldn't accept something that still has questions attached to it, as being the absolute truth. We shouldn't so vigorously & vocally defend our positions, getting into arguments with others simply because their position is different from ours and may be just as valid as ours.

So I agree that researchers make mistakes and sometimes even lie. But I guess, since I often read original papers myself and have been following a lot of this stuff pretty closely for a long time, I feel like I have a handle on what's accurate and true versus what may be pretty iffy. Like I know that the basic idea that some animals try to deceive one another is very well established. The idea that humans evolved from some apelike ancestor is extremely well established. On the other hand,when I read about some studies in anthropology where they say that ancient humans were mighty hunters who ate primarily meat--I don't see any evidence for it, even though most of the researchers in that area seem to accept it. All they have is some old stone tools and the fact that our brains got bigger. There's no way to know what the tools were used for. They can't prove that eating meat made our brains bigger. I just read a w hole book on it and I'm still not convinced. One researcher says he butchered a horse with a stone tool. I say, nice, but so what? That doesn't prove that that's what hominids were doing 2 million years ago. So, in that case, I agree with you, and probably Dana, that they are just blowing hot air. I think they probably mean well, but they are being influenced by how they want to imagine things. And I do agree that that happens a lot in some areas of science.

Good scientists know that and basically give themselves a hard time, try very hard to disprove their own ideas. But bad scientists easily leap to conclusions without good evidence. But you can often tell which kind they are by reading their writing or seeing how they talk about things. And good science writers can tell the difference and help readers sift the wheat from the chaff. Reporters or TV people who don't normally write about science often make mistakes and believe researchers who are exaggerating their results because they like the attention or are hoping to get more money, as I guess you are saying. But some sources of information are more reliable than others.

Sorry this is so long.

I'm getting confused here. It's like I'm writing stuff and I ]I'm answering questions but then it seems like some people aren't hearing the correct answer and then you think I'm dancing around the question.

I'm not like most people that play games like that. I don't dance around questions.

As for the deception thing vs the lying thing

There may be a difference in that animals may use deception to obtain food or escape a preditor while humans lie about cheating and out of greed or to protect a dangerous criminal from going to jail, etc. Or they might lie just out of hate. Or they might lie to a husband that his wife is cheating. Humans make up lies for greed. I don't think animals are deceptive to gain a bunch of cars or a bunch property or stocks/bonds, etc. They are not going to lie to their sex partner about having an STD or HIV.

Again, a lot of people out there don't believe animals are capable of hating or feeling any emotions.

I'm not sure that hiring a bahaviourist will prove that an animal is angry, hurt, jealous, revengeful, etc. A behaviourist can help train a dog without even believing that the dog has feelings and there are some who train dogs without considering the dog's needs.

Hello Dana:

Do you have a reason for NOT believing in evolution? I think most people who are as adamant as you are about these things, are afraid that if they're proven true, their entire religious belief systems go into the toilet.

Would that be you?

excon

Dana,

This is the question excon asked. In my opinion you have never answered it. Its really a simple question that can be answered yes or no. If you feel you answered it, just mention the post number and what you said. Otherwise please answer it.

Based on the links provided thus far it is not settled science whether toumai is more human or more ape



Skull shocker: a 7-million-year-old skull has scientists (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99554847.html)
The finder Brunet thinks its closer to human


'Toumai man' is really a female ape, say anthropologists - Independent Online Edition > Science & Tech (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article132302.ece)
"Toumai MAY be a common ancestor of apes and humans but it is not on the line directly leading to humans," Professor Wolpoff said yesterday. " WE THINK Toumai is an ape and WE THINK it's probably a female because of its canine teeth." Although the canine teeth were relatively small, LIKE THOSE OF HUMANS, their size was still within the range of chimpanzees and female gorillas, Professor Wolpoff said."

Notice the wording - He is not sure.


Fossil Hominids: Toumai (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html) I don't know the date but the other two are from 2002

"It is, I THINK, IMPOSSIBLE to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period. "

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chad skull 'leans to human line' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4416757.stm)

Again controversial.




The problem is that evolutionists see it through their own biases, and have to alter their theory [ if this is truly more human, the evolutionary time frame shifts MILLIONS of years ] as new evidence comes about, all the while asserting that evolution is a fact.

Hello Scott,
Thanks for reminding me about excon's question.

excon,

If you were visited by something some people call an angel, would you still be skeptical? Or would you be too proud to say you believe in God even after something happened to you that gave you some evidence of it?

I'm not sure there is anything I or anyone can say that could convince you that there is a God. I don't try to make anyone believe either.

All I can say is that most people I have met find it easier to believe in God than in lies researchers make up. Some people believe it is innate. I have yet to understand why? Maybe humans use God as an image thing too. I don't know.


For some people, it is just easier to not believe cause then they might have to make some changes in their lives. No different from any other belief system.

.
In summary, I tend to believe that you hesistate to believe in the existence of some God form because then your belief system would be shattered also.

I'm not sure if I believe in evolution or not. I think at this point, I believe that evolution goes hand in hand with some sort of intelligence out there that humans can't prove either.

I find it amazing that we as humans can't figure out who made us or where we came from and that all we have is theories and some sort of belief system.

Maybe we have to live in some sort of illusion so we don't go insane.

Ruby

You are correct that a lot of money and energy is wasted on made up research. And researchers also steal other researchers research and make it their own.

And it has been known that after researchers die, the truth comes out.


What interesting lives we as humans have.

asking

I agree with you also that there is a lot of false research.

Research that is driven by financial gain.

Nutrition is a good example. Some of us remember the 4 food groups we were taught in school. Now they use the paramid food group.

It is my understanding that who ever can convince the government with the most money gets their system printed in school books.

Those selling dairy products compete with those raising cattle and those growing wheat, etc. Whoever makes the largest contributions to the government wins. And that is how nutirition is taught in school.

Sorry Dana, but I think you are still dancing around rather than answering the question. I'm going to put it to you point blank. You seem to believe in God so the question is do you feel that accepting evolution as scientific fact conflcts with your belief system in a God?

I notice a lot of your answers seem to ridicule scentific research, yet you start this thread with some very questionable research.

I think I'm not giving the answer you guys want to hear.

I think basically we all have to live in some illusionary mind set or we would all go insane.

I honestly have never given any deep thought to evolution. I spend more time with my thoughts and my inspirations and so I lean towards that? Where do my thought processes come from? Where do my inspirations come from? Where does my intuition come from? How did I know that? As appose to where did my body come from?

I would certainly be at awed if I could see evidence of evolution such as human remains that are older than apes. Maybe that would get my brain juices moving in another direction.



If you are married, you have to believe that your spouse loves you although that may not be true. Again, living in some form of illusion.



I have answered your questions. I am sorry if you can't comprehend what I am saying.

No Dana you have not answered the question. You have danced around it and avoided a direct answer. What's unfathomable to me about that is that I see no reason to be so evasive about it.

But maybe the problem is, as you say, you "have never given any deep thought to evolution". This is evidenced by your comment that you would "be at awed if I could see evidence of evolution such as human remains that are older than apes". But that wouldn't be evidence of evolution. In fact, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Which is why a large number of people do believe in it. I'm not saying the evidence is such that it has been proven as scientific fact. Its still a theory, but one that fits the scientific facts better than any other.

Again, I'm sorry if you don't understand my answer.

To me I have given a clear answer.


Ultimately, there is no proof of anything not of God nor of evolution. We have to believe in things without proof. Belief can mean that there are no facts.

Anyone can get a mind set in one direction or another. One can go through periods in their life believing in evolution or some other belief and then later in life believe in God, etc.

They are all beliefs and not necessarily proof.

We will all die not having all the facts about anything, therefore, we live with illusions to keep us in one piece.

I personally try to keep an open mind about things and maybe that is why you don't understand my answer.

Maybe you want something concrete from me which I can't give.

To me I have given a clear answer.
...
Maybe you want something concrete from me which I can't give.

No you haven't given a clear answer, I don't have a clue how you can think so. But maybe its because you can't or won't. Maybe if I make this a multiple choice question you can answer it.

Q: You seem to believe in God so the question is do you feel that accepting evolution as scientific fact conflcts with your belief system in a God?

1) I believe that believing in Evolution conflicts with my belief in God
2) I believe that I can still believe in Evolution without it affecting my belief in God.

Please choose 1 or 2.

I don't know if I believe in evolution.

But if I did, I would probably think that God and evolution would go hand in hand,

The best choice is 2)


If the question is do you believe in evolution and I had to say yes or no, I would have to say no because I have never given any deep thought to it.


I don't even know why or how I believe in God but I do. I wish I knew why I have such a strong belief in God.

Has this discussion on why some of us believe in God been discussed anywhere on this site to your knowledge? I would be interested in reading it.

Why do you have such a strong need for someone to answer a question yes or no? Isn't there anything between for you?

Dana, I really like your answer. It felt thoughtful and sincere to me and I like that you said it your way and didn't necessarily accept the choices given to you (although I think Scott was trying to make his question more clear and make it easy to answer, not box you in). Thank you! I did not understand what you were saying before or why.

For me, evolution is not about faith or belief. But that's because I have spent a lot of time thinking about it and learning about it. I feel confident that evolution is really true because I have personally seen evidence for it and have read about it in detail. I don't feel that I'm just taking someone's word for it. All the evidence fits together and makes sense. I am persuaded that it's true. It is not just some scientific theory that may or may not be true--and I wouldn't say that about all science. For example, I don't know beans about string theory and haven't a clue whether it's true or not.

I think it's totally reasonable to not be sure if an idea is true if you haven't spent much time reading about it or thinking about it. (I feel that way about a lot of politicians.) Science doesn't need to be taken on faith; that's the whole point!

On the other hand, I don't agree that major scientific ideas should be suspect just because some individual scientists are human and make mistakes or even lie. I think, by and large, the major ideas of science are all pretty much right--not because scientists are paragons of virtue, but because the process works and allows falsehoods to be revealed quickly. Having seen how science self corrects, I feel confident that most of it is probably true. So, even though I don't really understand quantum theory, I take it as a given that it's true. I admit that to a large degree I take it on the authority of writers and teachers I respected. If they say it's right, I believe them. But again, that's based on having learned something about how science works and deciding to trust the process (not the scientists).

In science, human weakness affects what questions get asked, but not the answers. Human weakness affects who gets to do the science, and who gets credit, but, in the long run, not the answers. (I'm not saying there aren't exceptions!)

Hello asking

It's perfectly fine for you to believe in evolution.

I have a tendency to not give humans 100 percent credit for everything. I think God inspires humans into understanding.

Maybe one day, I will ask God to inspire me on evolution then I'll have something to add to the subject. Maybe I will also gets some books from the library.

I don't discount all science either. I believe in computer science. Why shouldn't I? The proof is right in front of my face and at my finger tips, but I believe that God inspires humans on how to make them and how to make the software and many ideas are born from inspiration not experience nor from reading a book.

Who was the first person to think of making a strange machine that later would be called a computer? Those are the kinds of questions that intrigue me. At least that is where I am at this point in my life.


Sometimes I have gone as far as to believe that an automobile is powered not only by gasoline but by God. There is so much that we cannot see or understand.

I find it easier to believe an inspiration than what I read in a book.

asking, it really pleases me that you have found something to believe in. It has certainly enriched your life. It's great to be able to use your mind to believe in something.

Hello again, Dana:

Asking gave you the reasons science isn't about belief. He did it very gently too, with a lot of empathy towards you. Then you tell him you think it's fine that he believes.

I have to scratch my head... I don't know how you couldn't have understood what he said, but you didn't. Explaining to you further that science doesn't offer choices will do no good. You will continue to think you can pick between which science you believe. Telling you that you can't will be met with an argument.

So, I'm content to let you live in your ignorance. I wish you well. I'm sure you're a fine person. But, we can't get any further here.

excon

I don't know if I believe in evolution.

But if I did, I would probably think that God and evolution would go hand in hand,

the best choice is 2)


If the question is do you believe in evolution and I had to say yes or no, I would have to say no because I have never given any deep thought to it.



Thank you. But I have to add some comments here. I think both excon and I made this question clear. The question was never whether you believed in evolution or not, it was about whether you felt that believing in evolution meant changing your religious belief system. Thankfully, when left with a very clear choice, you answered what I think is the best answer.

I think that you both have a certain mind set and maybe a certain amount of brainwashing that doesn't let you understand what I am saying.

Perhaps you guys are the ignorant ones.


I do not spend too much time reading scientific stuff and I try to keep and open mind. If people what to believe in science or God or what ever. That's fine with me.


I see no reason why evolution and God can't work together. It is you guys who fail to understand where I am coming from. It is you who fail to understand that believing in both God and evolution simultaneously is possible.


There maybe a form of evolution that no human has discovered yet or that will never understand either.

How do you know if God isn't behind evolution? There are probably people in the world who think of evolution in their own way.


I think you need to spend more time forming your own opinions as oppose to what some scientist or researchers say and spend more time listening to your thoughts

There may be a difference in that animals may use deception to obtain food or escape a preditor while humans lie about cheating and out of greed or to protect a dangerous criminal from going to jail, etc. Or they might lie just out of hate. Or they might lie to a husband that his wife is cheating. Humans make up lies for greed. I don't think animals are deceptive to gain a bunch of cars or a bunch property or stocks/bonds, etc. They are not going to lie to their sex partner about having an STD or HIV.

The "talking" ape Koko used to lie to her trainers when she did something wrong - she would blame other apes. So maybe they DO lie, we just don't understand their deceit until we understand their "language".

I think that you both have a certain mind set

Perhaps you guys are the ignorant ones.

I see no reason why evolution and God can't work together. It is you guys who fail to understand where I am coming from. It is you who fail to understand that believing in both God and evolution simultaneously is possible.

I think you need to spend more time forming your own opinions as oppose to what some scientist or researchers say and spend more time listening to your thoughts

Who "both"? What guys? There have been a few people participating in this thread. I don't see any of them fitting what you describe.

I don't see how your comments could apply to me. I said believing in God and Evolution was what I considered the right answer. I don't think I saw anyone's comments that could lead to that conclusion.

As for the last paragraph I quoted. I know I look at the facts presented not necessarily the researcher's conclusions.

Scott, sorry if I was talking to both you and excon. I can't always tell who it is that is looking for an answer.

I believe in evolution now because I am watching The Incredible Mr. Limpet. He was a human who turned into a fish. Maybe one day some humans will turn into fish. LOL

Maybe one day some humans will turn into fish. LOL

Like dolphins evolved from a hippo-like animal. :)
You never know.

Maybe some human mothers are already giving birth to fish. LOL

Dana, if you like fiction and the idea of a child born with "flippers", you just reminded me of a book that I read 20 years ago entitled "Geek Love". I remember I really loved the book, pure escapism & entertaining.ReadingGroupGuides.com - Geek Love by Katherine Dunn (http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides3/geek_love1.asp)

Hi Ruby

Thanks. Looks like my local library has it as a download. Will have to figure out how to do that?

Looking forward to reading it. Sounds like fun. Thanks.