JagMagMan

I'll bet they make you wear a padded helmet though!

Murby

JagMagMan,
It is unfortunate that you are so upset. I'm not sure why you are upset but trying to debate something is much better done when one has an objective attitude.

Perhaps a "time out" for some retrospect and familiarization would be in order.

clydeNY

He shouldn't have to. Evolution by natural selection has already been "proven" to the degree that anything we accept as scientific "fact" is. In other words, he shouldn't have to offer "proof" of evolution any more than he should have to provide "proof" of bacteria. The only reason the reality of evolution by natural selection is "debated" at this point is because some people feel threatened by the idea.

You can find people arguing about this stuff all over the internet. I usually pass on these discussions, but I find the context here kind of interesting. A hunter of all people should have a solid understanding of evolution, natural selection, and related concepts. A hunter without Darwin is like a rocket scientist without Newton.

Just an idea: save religion for when you really need it and, in the meantime, pick up a copy of the Origin of Species (there are PDF copies all over the internet). It represents one of the real triumphs of human thought and will give you a deeper understanding of both yourself and the animals you hunt. Darwin put an absurd amount of thought into this book. It's a very entertaining and enlightening read--some of his reasoning is extremely clever. If it's not to your taste, take comfort in the fact that, halfway through it, Darwin will have presented so much clear evidence for natural selection being the primary mechanism of evolution that any intellectually honest man should be embarrassed to deny it.

Yes, I know you can go to websites where intelligent religious people have cobbled together a quasi-scientific "proof" that "evolution is false", etc. You can say that about many things--that they are the subject of websites where intelligent religious people construct a sort of alternate reality where certain scientific ideas they find objectionable are re-interpreted in ways that usually depend on a simple misunderstanding or misconception. I don't visit these websites except for very occasional and somewhat morbid entertainment purposes.

I am not "anti-religion" or any such thing. I think God is real if only as a concept and I think many people truly need him. That's how I think religion should work. I think religion should be saved for what you really need it for. Like when someone dies or gets married. Special occasions that actually fill some kind of real cultural need. Holidays. Can you imagine how the general state of man in the world would improve if every religious human decided to be no more religious than this? To not take it any farther or more seriously?

If you either don't understand evolution or think it is false/disproven/etc., I would start with Wikipedia's nontechnical article:

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

But, once again, the Origin of Species is still the most compelling "plain language" case for evolution.

Lunkerdog

My question was pretty straight forward, and the link I provided earlier in this thread disputes your claim that there is a complete fossil record of human evolution.

If you can provide proof of that complete fossil record that would be great, but from what I gathered from the article I posted that debate seems to still be going on within the scientific community that is studying the fossils.

Murby

Ah.. that..
The first problem with the "complete fossil record" argument is that you must first define what is considered "complete" and one could easily set the standard so high it can not be achieved.
The second problem is that it has already been decided. Just another goal science conquered and another example of the church moving the goal posts.

No one is arguing about the fossil record.. its been decided.. even the Vatican acknowledges it. (not that the Vatican means anything to me but it should for all the creationist).

Anyone who argues the fossil record and sticks to a creationist theory is not even worth arguing with. Wise man said "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with stupidity".

I was (mistakenly?) under the impression that you posted that as general info for others.. To be honest, I read about 1/2 a page and left for it wasn't relevant to my side of the issue.

Did you intend to argue creationist theory?????

Lunkerdog

Since I believe in evolution, I wouldn't be able to make a very compelling argument for creationist theory. That said I also have faith/belief in a higher power.

The reason I looked up the article was because of your absolute statement that there is a complete fossil record of human evolution. A statement you have yet to prove. I'm not sure of your qualifications to make such a statement, so I don't want to sell your claim short. The article, had you read it, clearly shows that even those who work in the fields of locating, and determining the results of fossil recovery are still debating those results, and what they actually represent.

It seems as though you've made your determination of what is "complete", but some who work in the fields of making those determinations have not.

Murby

I'm an engineer, not a paleontologist so I'm no expert in that field..

I have however seen and read numerous documentaries that show the progression to upright walking, then to our current state.
In fact, a paleontologist can simply look at a bone and determine how much upright walking a species did by the wear patterns on the joints. Couldn't be more clear for me, and I think for others too.. (including many experts).

So let me ask you,
What makes you believe in a higher power (God) ??
Did you go to catechism? Parents deeply religious? What reasoning do you use to make the determination that a god exists?

(I am relieved that you are not a creationist.. they're not playing with a full deck of cards.)

Father Forkhorn

Murby,

I have a 5 minutes before class and will try to clarify.

Slaves often got a kind of half gospel/half bible from whites. It mentioned things like the line Leviticus and "slaves obey your masters." They were much less likely to hear story of Moses and God setting a race of slaves free.

Slaves were very insistent on hearing all of it. If they weren't hearing it from white ministers they either listened to their own or even learned to read (many did this secretly). Many a slave attended a secret bible service in the woods or out in the swamp.

A great book with a section on slave religion: Roll, Jordan, Roll by Eugene Genovese. Huge, but a classic.

sachiko

It makes me sad to see some of the kinds of statements made in this thread. There really is no conflict between belief and science, unless you create the conflict yourself.

I was raised Shinto and accepted the Catholic faith when I married. I didn't abandon Shinto but just incorporated it into the Catholic tradition.

I am also a Ph.D. candidate in biology, more specifically neuroembryology, so I am also quite immersed in science.

We believe in a creator we call amenominakanushi no kami. The creator is not only responsible for the origin of the entire universe, but also life itself. This creator is also present in all of us and in every other thing as well, even non-living. I think these beliefs are common to all Christian faiths as well.

Now evolution does nothing to disprove the existence of the creator. It merely explains the process by which all the various species came to be. It is not really true that there is a complete fossil line from the first classified primate to man, but there is enough evidence to demonstrate quite clearly that we, and the rest of the primate species, are all descended from a common ancestor.

But this does not prove or disprove the existence of the creator. We know the creator from our hearts, not from our thinking or from our knowledge of philosophy.

My husband taught me to hunt. We are teaching our older daughter (she's five) now to hunt. When we take an animal's life we wait and take time to thank the animal's soul for giving us its life. The soul of the animal continues on after its life here ends just as ours will. This is true even if you don't believe it.



May The Sheep Be With You

Murby

Creationist don't accept the science that says we evolved. So when someone brings the science to them it creates "those kinds of statements"...

Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't Shinto more of a practice of respect and tradition than a practice of a religious based belief in a higher power?
Japan has a top notch educational system and they are some pretty highly educated folks. I don't know you, but something tells me your acceptance of Catholic faith is more of an avoidance of conflict for the greater good of the marriage.

I'm just saying that from what I understand of Japanese religion, its not what we westerners consider a religion when we think about the subject.

Or am I all mixed up on that? I'm not all that familiar with it....

I did a bit of wiki reading on amenominakanushi no kami.... An interesting tradition and faith.. Doesn't seem like the typical god based religion.

Yes, actually it does.. It may not do anything to your Shinto, but it completely contradicts the catholic faith. Adam and Eve? Earth created in 6, rested on 7? Among others, very specific and very wrong.
Was your Shinto belief system always the same? Or was it updated to reflect new science in our modern times?

Careful, there are those in this forum who can not handle the fact that they are basically intellectual monkeys. Don't worry, I'm not one of them..

Ya.. I had hope for you earlier.. Does the Shinto really push that way of thinking so strongly? I didn't get a sense of that when I was reading about it.

While I believe respecting the animal, not so sure about the continuing life thing. So when life continues, then what?

Here's a couple things to ponder...
1) If life in heaven is so great, why do people fight so hard to live as long as they can? Why not live the most exciting, dangerous and adventurous life you can? Live fast, die young and go to heaven to enjoy the ever after?

2) The ever after.. think about this hard. how long does the ever after last? Do you die there too? Then what? And if the ever after really is "forever", wouldn't you get bored? I mean, it might be really cool for a while.. new stuff, new experiences, etc etc etc.. but forever is a long long time.. Even after a geological blip of a few ten thousand years I would think one would get so bored they'd want to off themselves. Where does it end?

The imagination is the limit and, as humans, our imagination can take us pretty far sometimes. But that doesn't make it real or true.

Thank you for ringing in to this thread. Your perspective is new and different and that is what I like most.