Brinnie Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 INTRO where to start, where to start...ok. to the best of my understanding, scientists are required to believe in evolution.i do not believe in evolution, so i guess i cant be a scientist.apparently, scientology says that for $12,499 i can believe in what i want, but maybe you guys will let me slide with my foodstamp card... [joke] EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTIONunderstand that i have not 'written off' the theory of evolution, it just hasn't been proved to me. if evolution is true, i'd really like to know. but there are some things that either go over my head or just don't make sense to me. i am going to ask some questions that you might consider stupid, but try to give me a good answer, they'll be labled A,B,C, etc... i'll have more questions as i learn. A. FOSSILS:how old is the oldest discovered caveman skull and where is it today?how old is the oldest discovered monkey skull and where is it today?can someone show me one of those "from monkey to man" pictures with the fossil dates, but also tell me which museums the skulls are found in? B. MACROEVOLUTION:So monkeymen have been around for millions of years and then in the last 2,000 years we all the sudden became smart and invented the wheel, lights, car, computer? where is logical data in that? CONTROVERSYthere are millions of people who think; and thousands of webpages that say evolution is false. at this point, i don't understand how anyone can say there isn't some truth to both sides. don't we need to do more lab tests and experiments before claiming a theory is 100% fact? I thought science was all about testing. :lol: maybe i stand alone, but i don't think it's very "scientific" to rule out any possibility, even if it's only 0.5% probable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 where to start, where to start...[*]ok. to the best of my understanding, scientists are required to believe in evolution. This is not necessarily true. [*]i do not believe in evolution, so i guess i cant be a scientist. See above. understand that i have not 'written off' the theory of evolution, it just hasn't been proved to me. It is a theory. There is no "proof", but there is heaps and heaps of evidence that points that direction though. if evolution is true, i'd really like to know. but there are some things that either go over my head or just don't make sense to me. i am going to ask some questions that you might consider stupid, but try to give me a good answer, they'll be labled A,B,C, etc... i'll have more questions as i learn. A. FOSSILS:how old is the oldest discovered caveman skull and where is it today?how old is the oldest discovered monkey skull and where is it today?can someone show me one of those "from monkey to man" pictures with the fossil dates, but also tell me which museums the skulls are found in? Take a look at the wiki links for "evolution" and particularly "human evolution". Evolution did not occur as "monkey to man" as you say. B. MACROEVOLUTION:So monkeymen have been around for millions of years and then in the last 2,000 years we all the sudden became smart and invented the wheel, lights, car, computer? where is logical data in that? There is no logic in that. Read the wiki on "human evolution" and then come back and ask questions. CONTROVERSYthere are millions of people who think; and thousands of webpages that say evolution is false. Well, if millions of people told you that jumping off a bridge was a good idea, would you believe them? In other words, it doesn't matter how many people believe or don't believe. It matters what you believe. :) at this point, i don't understand how anyone can say there isn't some truth to both sides.Science does not place faith in that which it can not tangibly test and make predictions about. don't we need to do more lab tests and experiments before claiming a theory is 100% fact? I thought science was all about testing. :lol:Again, no one is claiming that theory is fact. Science is constantly testing the theory. maybe i stand alone, but i don't think it's very "scientific" to rule out any possibility, even if it's only 0.5% probable Science must, by virtue, rule out any possibility that is untestable. It seems that Brinnie has not been properly introduced to the science of evolution. I suggest a thorough reading in evolutionary theory and an exploration of threads in these forums that deal with evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted February 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 thank you for your patience. i did tried reading some wiki's but got lost in the meaning of certain big words. never the less, I have 2 more questions- and i still seek the monkey to man picture WITH locations of skulls used for data... A. Intelligent language started roughly 3200 BC. Have there been any documented evidence of evolution from that time to present? B. i found this page List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it links to a bunch of skull replicas. forgive me for being too necrotic, but do these skulls exist in museums somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 thank you for your patience. i did tried reading some wiki's but got lost in the meaning of certain big words. never the less, I have 2 more questions- and i still seek the monkey to man picture WITH locations of skulls used for data... A. Intelligent language started roughly 3200 BC. Have there been any documented evidence of evolution from that time to present? I'm not sure what you are defining as "intelligent" language, but, where do you get 3200 BC from?B. i found this page List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it links to a bunch of skull replicas. forgive me for being too necrotic, but do these skulls exist in museums somewhere? I'm not sure, but I imagine the replicas are for museums. The real skulls would be kept in a preserved state somewhere else. But, like I said, I'm not sure about this. I'll try to find some info tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 don't we need to do more lab tests and experiments before claiming a theory is 100% fact? I thought science was all about testing. :lol: You need to read up on scientific models.Scientific modelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia maybe i stand alone, but i don't think it's very "scientific" to rule out any possibility, even if it's only 0.5% probable The purpose of the scientific model is to uncover bias, reduce possibility of error, and try to answer questions with evidence rather than faith. Proving something is part of the job - disproving it is probably even more important. So ruling out a possibility 100% is in itself impossible in natural science, but you can assert something with close to 100% certainty. There is a vast difference between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted February 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 I'm not sure what you are defining as "intelligent" language, but, where do you get 3200 BC from? teh wikipedia. their source is this page Ask A Linguist FAQ: Oldest LanguageI'm not sure, but I imagine the replicas are for museums. The real skulls would be kept in a preserved state somewhere else. But, like I said, I'm not sure about this. I'll try to find some info tomorrow.i only ask because i feel like the truth gets distorted over time. theres a bunch of people that believe the moon landing was a hoax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 I would never try to prove anything to a scientologist. IMO scientology is a mental disorder needing psychiatric intervention and it is pointless to try to prove anything to crazy people... Tormod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The D.S. Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 First off, Evolution is atheory, therefore it cannot be "proved. Secondly, why are you asking to "prove" such a thing to a scientologist? As far as I'm concerned, if they believe in the non-sense that I hear, then trying to "prove" such athing would be impossible for those nut-jobs :) Third, you're asking for skulls and locations ect. Such things will do you no good. I would suggest instead of asking for pointless skulls and things that won't help you, that ya study Evolution using the various links and suggestions on this site while also getting more details from a library or authenticated online source. Too many people get lost in the "monkey to man" idea when its not even close to that. When you have done your research, come on back and we'll chat :doh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 Actually, proving it will be easy. Seeing as people who believe in Scientology will believe anything. Tormod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 there are millions of people who think; and thousands of webpages that say evolution is false I am at a loss here - are you saying there is a correlation between the two? Anyways. Why start at the link between monkeys and men? Evolution had worked for a few billion years by the time humanity branched off the ape tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jab2 Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 Brinnie, I sense your are not out for a flame war, but to genuinely get some answers. Just be ready to maybe not get the answers you think you would get or the one's you would like. Evolution is a very emotional subject and will easily turn from a learning experience to one where no one learn, but every one chip in with some acid answer. i did tried reading some wiki's but got lost in the meaning of certain big words. Well, then you need to find what those big words mean. It is virtually impossible to understand science if you do not comprehend some of the "scientific language". And talking of language. Please use proper language form when posting. As far as I know most languages, including English (Both British and American) still use a capitol letter for the first letter of the first word in a sentence. :doh: Apart from being the correct form, it does make text a whole lot easier to read. (I suspect that is the way it evolved :)) And staying with language, your link say 3200BC for written language. If you have studied that piece thoroughly, you would have found the following at the bottom of the page. Although this question is still being debated, most linguists assume that the full language capacity had evolved by 100,000 BC. So I ask you to study your subject thoroughly, then ask informed questions and most of the members will be very eagre to help with answers. If however you expect to get answers without having to break a little sweat yourself, the Hypography forums might not be the place for you. If you are truely interrested in evolution and what it is, why people believe in the theory and what the most common misconceptions about it is, please visit TalkOrigins. You will find a goldmine of info there. Boerseun and Eclogite 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 reminds me of a saying we've all heard "does'nt take a rocket scientist to figure that out" brain washing at it's best. how many times have you seen on TV shows, and movies, the scientist is the smart one; has all the answers, or knows how to get the answers, puts all the clues together, saves the day. brain washing. intellegence is a gift you can not give yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinnie Posted February 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 I would never try to prove anything to a scientologist. IMO scientology is a mental disorder needing psychiatric intervention and it is pointless to try to prove anything to crazy people...Totally irrelevant and politically incorrect- but hey- I'll take a stab at it... I deplore critics who pose as experts. Scientology is a new religion, and unlike most, it may bcome an established religion whether the rest of us like it or not All religions have origin myths, and all religions keep secrets from the uninitiated. If a "nonbeliever" were 2 tell teh origin myth of Christianity, it would sound no less fantastic than the Thetan myth of L. Ron Hubbard: A spirit present as God b4 the creation of the universe splits off from Godhead after billions of years of Earth time and iz born again as a flesh-and-blood person 2 a Jewish woman. The son gathers adherents, casts out demons from afflicted people, works miracles and finally confronts teh evil king in the Jewish capital city. The evil empire's soldiers try, convict and kill him in a public execution. He then is resurrected b4 his disciples and tells them 2 spread his kingdom throughout the world. He promises 2 appear again and save those who believe in his message and condemn 2 eternal punishment those who do not. All of his followers will be resurrected after our Earth is destroyed by seven years of heaven-sent catastrophes that kill off most of the human race. does this tale sound more convincing than Scientology's beliefs? myths r symbolic expressions of existential truths; they r not literal accounts of historical events. Their truth — religious truth — is not subject 2 experimental verification. Religious truth sustains and organizes human societies and gives identity — and thus, sanity — 2 human beings. Expressing 1self religiously and symbolically is an essential ingredient of being human. Myth will always be with us, whether created by cosmologists, as the Big Bang theory, or by poets and prophets as alternative accounts of world creation. Cults also exist in every established religion. Cults r subgroups that express worship of a deity in a particular ritual, such as a cult of Mary that prays the rosary, or a cult of temple sacrifice that features a banquet. A cult is not a "faux religion." Seldom does a new religious movement survive its founder's death, as Scientology has, and take root during subsequent generations, gain followers and become established as a church. But those movements that do succeed r vilified at the beginning, when they have no advocates and no power. President Buchanan sent the U.S. Army 2 try 2 take control of the Mormon colony in Utah; Seventh-day Adventists ("Millerites") were ridiculed for falsely predicting the date of the apocalypse twice; Pentecostals were regarded as devil-worshipers and "holy rollers" because of their ritual encounters with the Holy Spirit. Today all r established mainstream religions. Scientologists r discriminated against and forbidden 2 practice in sum European nations where freedom of religion is subordinated 2 the dominance of state churches. Only in the United States r new religions legally free 2 develop and grow, but they must first endure the gantlet of public hate speech by those with little or no understanding of religion as a dynamic, diverse and intrinsic enterprise. 1 need not be a Scientologist — as I emphatically am not — 2 advocate for Scientologists' 1st Amendment right 2 believe their myths, practice their rituals and promulgate their message 2 others. 1 may be a skeptic — as I am — and still marvel at the creative ways in which human societies attain and maintain a collective identity and sense of meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 intellegence is a gift you can not give yourself. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The D.S. Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Oh Brinnie...:lol: I have only one thing to say...you've come to a science forum...aka a place where knowledgable people come to dicuss scientific and world events. Notice the keyword "scientific"...not "scientology". The people at Hypography are far from "critics" as you call them. I take this kinda personally as offensive merely because you haven't been a member for long and you are already firing away at the very people you asked your question to. Not a good choice my dear... If you would like to discuss Scientology I would suggest it be elsewhere than a science forum, as all of us (I'm 100% positive) don't think it even holds enough water for a valid scientific discussion. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Totally irrelevant and politically incorrect- but hey- I'll take a stab at it......1 need not be a Scientologist — as I emphatically am not — 2 advocate for Scientologists' 1st Amendment right 2 believe their myths, practice their rituals and promulgate their message 2 others. 1 may be a skeptic — as I am — and still marvel at the creative ways in which human societies attain and maintain a collective identity and sense of meaning.[/color] Now if you'd like to take a stab at something try proving that interfering with the mental treatment of those that need it is some kind of 1st amendment right. IMO they should be held accountable for malpractice. People that believe there's no such thing as mental disease and claim that psychiatry is nothing more than an abusive scam are delusional. When they further interfere with those that need such help they make themselves a danger to society. I could care less about their belief in aliens. Their position on psychiatry and psychology is evidence enough that they're nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 does this tale (the Christian myth)sound more convincing than Scientology's beliefs?No. That's why I don't believe it either.Only in the United States r new religions legally free 2 develop and grow, but they must first endure the gantlet of public hate speech by those with little or no understanding of religion as a dynamic, diverse and intrinsic enterprise.Only? Could you point me to the legal restrictions on practicing or promoting scientology in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.