Author Topic: Real Life believes  (Read 59168 times)

The Black-caped Man

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • The time........has come........!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #25 on: 2008-01-03 12:20:21 »
Synergy Blades is absolutely right!

The reason why I dislike all Chrisitans I know is that theyre all like you said: They insist on their religion, are not open minded, dont understand anything else. They just say the things you wrote: Because Holy Bible said bla bla, because Jesus once said bla bla....Why should Jesus be more holy than me or you guys? We never got to know him. I think he was just a good speaker and lived in a time where people could easily be convinced by supernatural things thats all.
I have no problem with Chrisitans in general, but I hate the way the influence people in their belief:
It starts with the stupid baptism. What are they thinking? They are more or less forcing you to be in there, if you want it or not. I wish I had never been baptised. Then they continue with Religion as a subject at school. Thats just wrong. You are told: This is so, this is that way. Thats just completely wrong. Then we got the church, which uses its religion to make money with it.(=>church rate) And the best thing is when I confront my religion teacher with that, he always says: "But we have to show them the "right" way of belief"!
WRONG: There is no right way. At least no way thats righter than others.

I think religion as a subject at school should be completely forbidden till High School or so. Then there should be such a subject, but the teacher shouldnt just say: That is this way and so on. He should ask the pupils what they believe and maybe put his own belief in. It should be a kind of supernatural discussion where everyone says what he believes and where others accept that and do not try to convince him. This would be and ideal idea right?

Master Ridley

  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • Space Pirate Supreme Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #26 on: 2008-01-03 14:35:40 »
Since this is the greatest Final Fantasy forum on earth(or at least the greatest I found :-P) I am sure Final Fantasy VII is more than a game in your eyes. As for me, it changed my way of thinkin in real life. Yes I do have the belief of Final Fantasy VII. I believe that everything consists of a combination of Life stream particles(or as the christ would say: the "soul") and I do believe that our spiritual energy returns to the planet when were gone, as does our body(=decay). Then our consciousness joins the main Life Stream so that the particles are somehow shuffled and then somewhere else we are reborn. We are no longer WE but I'm sure that sometimes certain particles are the same than in our previous lifes. We are combinations of Life Stream particles and human DNA.

This is my belief.

Now I wanted to ask what you guys think? whats your believe? And did Final Fantasy VII also affect your way of life like in my case?

Change soul to spirit and your on the right track. It has been scientifically proven that the Literal, physical spirit (that potentially can become a ghost) is actually the magnetic field of the human body. The Spirit is not only the bodies magnetic field but also the current consciousness of that life. When you die, your magnetic field becomes part of the planets magnetic field.

Your Ghost is a complete copy of your spirit that is created by your spirit attaching itself to an object of great importance, most likely a precious item within a house or the house itself and it becomes active after the person dies. A Ghost even has a consciousness, somewhat.

The soul is something different. It's your essence and that can travel elsewhere, either after you die or before you die during a traumatic event. If the Soul leaves your body early, your spirit takes over your consciousness. Of course, you won't notice though.

If this is confusing, sorry.

Borde

  • *
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #27 on: 2008-01-03 15:51:31 »
I don't know if I can say this without being offensive, but I'll do my best: Creationism is a threat to sience and, don't doubt about it, a threat to society itself. But I just can't grasp the reason why the Christian church has come up with this absurd idea. It's because they are loosing belivers? Maybe it's because science has proven wrong theories mistaken as absolute truth by the church? If they really want to be taken seriously they should just accept that their duty is to confort people's heart's and give moral advice (even if religion isn't the only way), not to explain the world around us. If their sacred texts are wrong (or at least unlikely) why not just say that they are figurative? I think it would be the most elegant way to settle down this useless discussion of once and for all. When used correctly, religion cannot contradict science because they play in completly separeted fields.

Telling the students to simply ignore the currently accepted theories looks like a very dangerous lesson to me. Sure, anyone can come up with it's own theory about anything that hasn't been explained irrefutably (that is, nearly anything). And that's not bad, in fact this is the way science advances. But it just cannot be directly put at the same level of the current theory accepted by the sientific community. And the reason is that those theories are backed up with a collection of facts that make them more likely than all the others.

obesebear

  • *
  • Posts: 1389
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #28 on: 2008-01-03 16:16:21 »
I think science is a large reason why a lot of orthodox churches are shrinking in numbers and followers.  Hundreds of years ago the church believed the Earth was the center of the universe, but when the Heliocentric system was proposed it was considered blasphemous. 

It's a good example of how any religion cannot be taken too literally.  The sun being the center of the universe has nothing to do with God existing, and it took some years before the church finally understood this.  It's much the same today with evolution being the forefront of disproving creationism.  Though it is possible evolution could have happened on such a massive scale over billions of years, whats to say a greater power didn't have a hand in it?

The problem is many people take their religion far too seriously causing them to be blindingly close-minded.

The Black-caped Man

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • The time........has come........!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #29 on: 2008-01-03 19:28:52 »
Exactly. Its that close-mindness that really dissappoints me. Good to see that I can talk with you guys about this topic without being called "Anti-Christ Fucker" or "Unholy Metal Ass".
These are the terms people usually use against me although Im very open-minded. Well, this is how far it has come in todays society.......

squeeble

  • *
  • Posts: 423
  • GOOGLE GODDAMIT!!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #30 on: 2008-01-04 07:48:48 »
Good to see that I can talk with you guys about this topic without being called "Anti-Christ f***er" or "Unholy Metal Ass".
These are the terms people usually use against me although Im very open-minded. Well, this is how far it has come in todays society.......

You should tell those people that grammar fails them and to think of a better slanderous comment, rather than sounding like a 10 year old lol.

The Black-caped Man

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • The time........has come........!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #31 on: 2008-01-04 09:02:05 »
Thats precisely what I do but in fact it doesnt help me much.......well I dont mind these people anyways.....

Freman

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #32 on: 2008-01-04 20:36:19 »
The reason why I dislike all Christians I know is that they're all like you said: They insist on their religion, are not open minded, don't understand anything else. They just say the things you wrote: Because Holy Bible said bla bla, because Jesus once said bla bla....Why should Jesus be more holy than me or you guys? We never got to know him. I think he was just a good speaker and lived in a time where people could easily be convinced by supernatural things thats all.

That's very open minded of you. Especially considering almost every criticism you level at them could be turned back on you. The central tenet of Christianity is the resurrection, either it happened or it didn't. If it didn't then Christianity is false. Unlike evolution (defined as the idea that all living things are descended from a single form which in turn arose from non-living matter) it could have been falsified. It wasn't.

I don't know if I can say this without being offensive, but I'll do my best: Creationism is a threat to science and, don't doubt about it, a threat to society itself. But I just can't grasp the reason why the Christian church has come up with this absurd idea. It's because they are loosing believers? Maybe it's because science has proved wrong theories mistaken as absolute truth by the church? If they really want to be taken seriously they should just accept that their duty is to confront people's heart's and give moral advice (even if religion isn't the only way), not to explain the world around us. If their sacred texts are wrong (or at least unlikely) why not just say that they are figurative? I think it would be the most elegant way to settle down this useless discussion of once and for all. When used correctly, religion cannot contradict science because they play in completely separated fields.

Creationism is not a threat to science, after all most fo the founders of science would have been described as young earth creationists. Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, etc. Creationism is not a threat to society but Evolution might be; after all the biggest butchers in history like Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists.

Its logical that as the Biblical claims about history are rejected then its moral claims will be rejected also.

I think science is a large reason why a lot of orthodox churches are shrinking in numbers and followers.  Hundreds of years ago the church believed the Earth was the center of the universe, but when the Heliocentric system was proposed it was considered blasphemous.

I would say that the atheistic dogma being pumped into students is indeed resulting in falling numbers of Christians in the west. Your knowledge of history is somewhat limited however. Heliocentric cosmology has been around since the time of the Greeks, Copernicus proposed it as an alternative to the Aristotelian geocentric model and it was treated as an interesting model. Galileo ran into trouble for two main reasons, in the wider geopolitical conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism someone who challenged the authority of churchmen to interpret scripture was instantly offside with the Church. His other fault was allowing his book to be seen as mocking the Pope. At least it was the Pope, a secular leader would probably have chopped his head off. Meanwhile Galileo couldn't present evidence to support his contention that wasn't equally well explained by Tycho Brae's geocentric model that had the Sun revolving around the Earth and the other planets revolving around the Sun.

Actually you can still mathematically construct a geocentric model of the Solar System that provides all the predictive power of the heliocentric model without anyone being able to prove it wrong.

Religion. Educating people about biology since 0 AD. cheesy

I do not even dare to ask why religion class is doing Creationism / Young Earth brainwashing instead of... you know, teaching things about religions in general.


Are you familiar with the name Carolus Linnaeus, a devout Christian and YEC whose biological classification system is still used today?

To point to the mysterious, the unknown (and moreover, the never-knowable... "how can you prove god doesn't exist?") just because there are gaps in our understanding - such as you find with Creationists against evolution - is really the fall of the provable and the rise of the fanciful; this sort of thing could often be found in centuries past where concepts such as the stars in the sky being "heavenly bodies" or twinkling gods watching over us were common - because we simply lacked the understanding, and filled in the gaps with whatever mysterious ideas our heads could collectively come up with. As we enter recent centuries, "the unknown" gives way; our scientific and mathematical understanding grows, and so the need for religion seems to be slipping with regards to the immediate world around us, and long-established religious bodies become afraid of change. Not so with science.

You've managed to display your own indifference to logic. There are positive logical, philosophical and historical arguments for the necessary existence of God. There are actual positive arguments against the idea of evolution (as described above) not least that all observed changes in species involving sorting and loss of existing genetic information, not the gain that would be necessary for an amoeba to become an anthropologist. That's why evolutionists usually resort to equivocation, the whole "we see dogs form new varieties of dogs, therefore a reptile turned into a dog" argument.

My life driving force is love, love of my friends family, the girl I'm painfully in love with, and I don't need any god or something telling me if I don't do right I'll burn because I do whats right out of the kindness of my heart not a book or a higher being telling me how to do it.
But it seems common sense isn't so common anymore these days with groups of youths...


You've just described why you do something, not why it's right or wrong. That's the key issue; why is something right or not? Meanwhile the Christian insists that all human beings (being originally created in God's image) know at least something of right and wrong so your position is entirely consistent with our beliefs.

So and we can ask the question what creates the world around us he or she will say energy, well describe energy; it can never be created or destroyed, it always was and always has been, it is everything that ever existed it always exists, and its moving into form, through form and out of form.

So you can go to a theologian and say what created the universe and he or she will say god, ok describe god; always was and always has been, never be created or destroyed,  it always was and always has been, it is everything that ever existed it always exists, and its moving into form, through form and out of form.

Its the same description just different terminology

So who are we? We are spritual beings, we are an energy field operating in a larger energy field.


It's wonderful to construct other people's arguments. It avoids having to engage with real arguments.

Energy exists only in the sense that it's always present. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the sum total of available energy is in a state of decrease. The general term for that in an increase in disorder. Visualize it as a clock running down. Consequently it actually is part of an argument for a creator, if a clock is winding down then at some point something had to wind it up. Since energy is the most fundamental unit in the universe whatever raised the energy to its initial level is probably outside the universe, this is accepted as one of the qualities of God.

Synergy Blades

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #33 on: 2008-01-04 21:53:13 »
Quote
the atheistic dogma being pumped into students

What dogma is this? The dogma that people can believe what they like, make up their own mind (preferably when their minds are at an age they can comprehend what's being told to them), and are free to do so and live without influence by one particular religion over the populace? Or perhaps those atheists that go round countries converting everyone by the sword, or those atheists that fly themselves into tall buildings to make them topple? Or perhaps those atheists that kill their own family because their son-in-law belongs to the wrong caste? Yes, atheists do bad things too, but usually that's a psychological, mental or other societal problem, not because a twisted dogma tells them they're doing the right thing.

Quote
after all the biggest butchers in history like Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists.

Ergo, all evolutionists are dangerous? Surely a poor argument; Hitler was a Christian but the argument that, therefore, Christians are likely to be the most dangerous is ridiculous, since not all Christians are alike (though some share the same source for their beliefs, without being able to use free will and free decision about their ethics and morals, which could be construed as dangerous). I could also say Hitler and Stalin have moustaches, ergo, all people who have moustaches are the biggest threats to humanity.  :|

Quote
You've managed to display your own indifference to logic. There are positive logical, philosophical and historical arguments for the necessary existence of God. There are actual positive arguments against the idea of evolution (as described above) not least that all observed changes in species involving sorting and loss of existing genetic information, not the gain that would be necessary for an amoeba to become an anthropologist. That's why evolutionists usually resort to equivocation, the whole "we see dogs form new varieties of dogs, therefore a reptile turned into a dog" argument.

Logical, philosophical and historical arguments that simply lack any verifiable or even falsifiable proof. That lack of falsifiability means we can make no arguments against religion or a higher being - it becomes "untouchable". I already mentioned that evolution has holes, and as a person behind the cause of science it doesn't mean that I'm willing to substitute the notion of some almighty creator - without proof - where those holes reside. So evolution may not be totally correct; what are you suggesting in its place? Something unprovable by science, that cannot be seen, touched, felt, observed, calculated, or even understood - and if so, why?

Quote
if a clock is winding down then at some point something had to wind it up. Since energy is the most fundamental unit in the universe whatever raised the energy to its initial level is probably outside the universe, this is accepted as one of the qualities of God.

You're doing what I suggested here, jumping straight to the fantastical from a lack of knowledge.
« Last Edit: 2008-01-04 22:11:12 by Synergy Blades »

Jari

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #34 on: 2008-01-04 22:16:47 »
Creationism is not a threat to science, after all most fo the founders of science would have been described as young earth creationists. Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, etc. Creationism is not a threat to society but Evolution might be; after all the biggest butchers in history like Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists.

Evolution is not a threat to society but Christianity might be; after all the biggest butchers in history like Pope Urban II, Pope Eugene III, Pope Innocent III - har har, what a funny name - and Pope Honorius III were not only Christians, but also leaders of the church.


Its logical that as the Biblical claims about history are rejected then its moral claims will be rejected also.

Yes! Because I think Dubya should be hanged - preferably by some other part of his body than neck - I also shall not use neither Intel's or AMD's CPUs or nVidia's cards, because by golly, these are eeeevil American companies. It's extremely logical!

Anyway, do I even need to ask why someone who believes in the invisible man in the sky suddenly developed an interest in logic?


I would say that the atheistic dogma...

Since atheism is not a religion, it doesn't have dogmas, either. I admit that some atheist certainly act like it's a religion, but that's their problem.


Actually you can still mathematically construct a geocentric model of the Solar System that provides all the predictive power of the heliocentric model without anyone being able to prove it wrong.

Considering that James Bradley proved it wrong in 1725, I'd beg to differ.


Religion. Educating people about biology since 0 AD. cheesy

I do not even dare to ask why religion class is doing Creationism / Young Earth brainwashing instead of... you know, teaching things about religions in general.


Are you familiar with the name Carolus Linnaeus, a devout Christian and YEC whose biological classification system is still used today?

*facepalm*

Familiar enough that I know his given first name.

I can also see that you really hit the nail on the head, there. Totally got my point, and all that.


There are actual positive arguments against the idea of evolution (as described above) not least that all observed changes in species involving sorting and loss of existing genetic information, not the gain that would be necessary for an amoeba to become an anthropologist. That's why evolutionists usually resort to equivocation, the whole "we see dogs form new varieties of dogs, therefore a reptile turned into a dog" argument.

Oooops. And this.


It's wonderful to construct other people's arguments. It avoids having to engage with real arguments.

Energy exists only in the sense that it's always present. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the sum total of available energy is in a state of decrease. The general term for that in an increase in disorder. Visualize it as a clock running down. Consequently it actually is part of an argument for a creator, if a clock is winding down then at some point something had to wind it up. Since energy is the most fundamental unit in the universe whatever raised the energy to its initial level is probably outside the universe, this is accepted as one of the qualities of God.

Why are you just quoting some Creationist / ID handbook for arguments, then? If you'd want real arguments, you should come up with your own.

Plus, here's something you might want to read about second law of thermodynamics.


PS. Awesome lolcat, SB. :-D

Synergy Blades

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #35 on: 2008-01-04 22:19:54 »
Btw, your argument about holes in evolution reminded me of this.

Theory: When I jump in the air, I float off into the sky.
Observation: I don't float off, I come back down to earth.

Because the atheist cannot prove beyond doubt that there is a force of gravity pulling me back down, God exists - and is pulling everyone down.  :?

Welcome to Intelligent Falling:-D



Thanks Jari, thought you might like it, you seem to be in a bit of a lolcat phase.  :-D
« Last Edit: 2008-01-04 22:23:33 by Synergy Blades »

squeeble

  • *
  • Posts: 423
  • GOOGLE GODDAMIT!!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #36 on: 2008-01-04 22:59:37 »
[offtopic] Bring back the dog with the laser eyes![/offtopic]


The Black-caped Man

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • The time........has come........!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #37 on: 2008-01-06 17:23:27 »
I just wanted to say, next time you want to put something in that was said by another person use the insert quote function^^

†Slash†

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #38 on: 2008-01-06 18:59:43 »
Religion, as a whole, attempts to justify who we are, what we are, and where we came from (much like science). However, unlike science, religion is a much more primitive way of thinking and simply falls short of providing viable answers to what humanity may or may not be.

Perhaps the greatest flaw of the human mind is its insatiable desire to discover its own origin, and to explain things around it. I'm sure, on more than one occasion, early man tried to explain his own surroundings, just as modern man does with religion and theories such as evolution. If a cave man goes to the river to get something to drink, and it starts to rain, he can scoop up water with his own hands and make it "rain", as well. He thinks "By Jove, I've got it! There must be someone like me, but bigger and immortal above me making it rain!". If there's a forest fire, early man can come to the conclusion that since he can make fire, there must be great gods in the skies making fire on a larger scale.

Religion generally offers a set of ideas; some good, some bad. Christianity, for example, teaches good virtue and morality. According to the Bible, you must live a somewhat Christ-like life to gain admittance into Heaven and become born again. This requires having faith in God and Christ without having any solid facts or clues that point to their existence, or proof of the validity of the Bible.

The Bible states that God is an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful lord that created humanity as well as the world we live in. However, if he's so merciful, why is it if we don't follow his teachings, we are condemned to eternal suffering in the pits of a fiery Hell? Is God not just a tyrannical overlord that continuously bullies his subjects? Christians follow the Bible blindly. For example, Christians will praise God for saving one survivor in the infamous World Trade Center attack, yet not blame him for killing the other three thousand. If Hurricane Katrina spared a family's home, it's clearly by God's mercy and love, yet it's Satan that brought about the destruction and pain for the thousands of others.

Then there's the issue of proving whether or not God exists. "The Celestial Teapot" is an analogy written by Bertrand Russell, a philosopher, that helps show that it is entirely the Christian Church's responsibility to prove the existence of God and their Bible. Atheists and other non-believers should not have to prove why God doesn't exist or why the Bible is wrong.

Quote from: Bertrand Russell
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

This applies to other parody-religions, as well. Who can say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Atheism has brought evolution and facts to the table, but what do Christians have to show? For that matter, what does any religion have to show? Certainly the Bible isn't based on fiction alone. I'm not trying to say that none of it is true. I'm sure some parts were based on actual events, places, or people. However, as far as "God" goes, I see no evidence, facts, or proof of his existence.

This post is intended to show my view on religion, not attack Christianity, or any other religion. I use Christianity as an example, because it's probably the religion most are familiar with. I have nothing against Christians, or other religious orientations.

obesebear

  • *
  • Posts: 1389
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #39 on: 2008-01-06 20:21:33 »
Quote
The Bible states that God is an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful lord that created humanity as well as the world we live in. However, if he's so merciful, why is it if we don't follow his teachings, we are condemned to eternal suffering in the pits of a fiery Hell? Is God not just a tyrannical overlord that continuously bullies his subjects? Christians follow the Bible blindly. For example, Christians will praise God for saving one survivor in the infamous World Trade Center attack, yet not blame him for killing the other three thousand. If Hurricane Katrina spared a family's home, it's clearly by God's mercy and love, yet it's Satan that brought about the destruction and pain for the thousands of others.

Just to clear some things up, being merciful doesn't mean allowing no bad or evil to happen.  It means showing mercy.. showing forgiveness or sympathy.  If you seek forgiveness and accept Jesus as being God's son, all you need do is ask for his mercy/forgiveness and there you go, you are forgiven just like that.  Christians also believe God gave people free will, which means assholes will be assholes and fly planes into buildings and God won't necessarily interfere.

Also you must lose something (or never have had it) in order to be grateful for it.  If God only allowed good things to happen at all times, there would be no appreciation of said good things.  And sometimes humanity needs the tragedies to realize what we have.  Unfortunately it seems the tragedies are what brings out the best in people.

Perhaps God doesn't exist and everything in the universe just happened by off chance.  If anyone can quickly sum up the facts evolution has brought to the table I would sincerely like to hear them.  I know evolution does happen, such as humans slowly losing wisdom teeth and animals adapting to their environment, but I still haven't seen a fish become reptile.  If it's survival of the fittest... wouldn't only humans and a few select other species still be around, or at least still evolving?  If anyone can enlighten me, I'd like to know more.

†Slash†

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #40 on: 2008-01-06 21:24:54 »
I am by no means an expert on evolution or creationism, but I think that many people undermine the concept of evolution.

When people say evolution happened by "chance", that's only half true. Yes, it was chance that organisms appeared in different types of environments, but it is not by chance they evolved the way they did. People sometimes ask me "Well, how can everything be so perfect and symmetrical if evolution was so random?". Well, if you look at the situation from a logical perspective, would it make sense if things were not symmetrical? Could you imagine the instability of having only one leg in the center of your body? Could you imagine the limited eye-sight of only one eye in the center of your head? Symmetric anatomy is a cornerstone of adaptation and fitness in the environment.

Organisms evolved the way they did to adapt to their environments and survive accordingly. If, for some reason, an animal's prey moves out of the animal's ecosystem (be it weather or environmental changes that forces it to move), the animals that follow the prey will be the ones that survive. If their prey happened to move to a desert environment from a swamp-like environment (unlikely, but plausible), the animals best fit for that environment would flourish.

For example,  these Ibex: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Ibexes.jpg (image courtesy of Wikipedia).

Those Ibex are virtually invisible in their environment. Naturally, if they were in a forested area, their brown color would stick out like a sore thumb. Say that this animal's ancestor had a dark brown and black embossed coating to fit in with a forested area, but they had to migrate to a desert environment in search of food. Naturally, the animals with the light-brown coat traits would be harder to see and would thrive, while the Ibex whose coat was dark brown would stand out easier to predators. Prime example of survival of the fittest.

.... And honestly,... Can you tell me you don't see an uncanny resemblance to humans when you look at most apes? In my opinion, apes are living proof that evolution happens, and it's not simply "chance" that we evolve the way we do. Suppose again, for some reason, that chimps, orangutans, or whatever were forced to leave the trees and live on the land due to environmental disaster or lack of a food source. If these apes had to evolve to fit a land environment, they would need to adapt. Naturally, their feet would have to become more apt for running,... Just like a man's. They'd need to become lean and swift, rather than bulky. But most of all, the apes would have to rely on their mind in this new environment, which I think is how humans came to be. There is a lot more information that this Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ancestor could tell you than I could ever try to explain. But, if you look at the skulls of pre-homo sapiens you probably couldn't tell much of a difference from chimp skulls.

obesebear

  • *
  • Posts: 1389
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #41 on: 2008-01-06 21:39:42 »
I understand species evolving to better adapt much like the Ibex picture you posted.  I don't understand why we no longer see half man half apes.  If this happened at one time because apes needed to adapt, why do apes no longer need to become humans?  If the evolution of all beings came from a single celled organism, shouldn't all the "in between" species that attempted to evolve still exist and be happening? http://www.alistreview.com/uploads/evolution.jpg.   There is indeed evidence of beings existing that resemble both humans and apes, but why are they no longer around.  If evolving doesn't happen instantaneously there would have to have been a lot of neanderthals to carry on their species. Yet only the beginning neanderthal's (apes) and end neanderthals (humans) were fit enough to survive?

That seems to contradict the entire purpose behind evolution. 

Lol, maybe I should find a board based on evolution vs. creationism to get answers.  I don't think a final fantasy board is going to be too much help haha  :-D

†Slash†

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #42 on: 2008-01-06 21:51:30 »
As far as I know, there's no universal conclusion as to the disappearance of pre-homo sapiens, but the general consensus, last I checked, was that homo sapiens eventually replaced the other homo species by using all the food and environmental sources by using their more capable minds. It pretty much falls in with the original "survival of the fittest" argument, supposing that the other species could not compete with modern humans due to their inferior intellect.

Apes don't continue to evolve because they're not forced to. They're perfectly suited for their habitats and don't need to evolve. Something has to happen to cause a species to adapt; some kind of environmental change or supply change. So, if the apes of today aren't forced to move out of their environments as a whole, then why would they need to evolve?

obesebear

  • *
  • Posts: 1389
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #43 on: 2008-01-06 22:01:53 »
I'm not sure I follow why only the pre-homo sapiens would then go extinct and not other animals as well.

I can understand with our rapid overtaking of the Earth species are not having enough time to adapt and evolve to these conditions we are forcing them to live in, but are there any facts on what caused apes to adapt on a massive scale like that?  Why were fish forced to evolve into reptiles and/or mammals?  Or vice versa?

†Slash†

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #44 on: 2008-01-06 22:57:48 »
Well, the homo sapiens were in direct competition with the other homo species, unlike other animals. As shown by the food chain, there are always less predators than there are prey. In this case, there's less of the homo genus than what they're preying on. However, this doesn't mean there was enough food to go around for everyone. They had to work to get their food, and it just happened that the homo sapiens were the best at doing just that.

To be honest, I'm not sure that apes went through the evolution cycle on a massive scale. There are many possible ways that the evolution could have taken place, whether it be a few apes that were forced to evolve, or many. I'm just not sure on that one, I guess I'll look it up whenever.

Now, as far as the evolutionary cycle from water to land, I think the most popular theory is that fish used fins to move in mud and murky water. Fish that had larger and more dynamic fins were more successful swimmers, thus more successful in getting food. The trait for fins was naturally passed down through the fish that lived to breed, hence natural selection. The fins would continue to develop through the generations until there were legs.

That's about all I know on the subject without looking too far into it.

The Black-caped Man

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • The time........has come........!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #45 on: 2008-01-07 12:29:35 »
Very interesting facts, though we know all of them(I mean that we evolved out of apes), we still oversee some aftermaths.(I mean that I know THAT we evolved out of apes but I never questioned WHY, although I know that organisms adapt on their environment).
Good that Slash posted it so nice :-D
And if we connect evolution to Christianity, we see that their theory of only humans having a soul is complete nonsense. We evolved out of animals, so they must have a soul too. Animals evolved out of blue-green algae, which are cyanobacteria and which cant be larger than a few micrometer. We see that even such little bacteria must have a soul, so everything that "lives" should contain a soul: humans, animals, plants....The "Lifestream" flows everywhere^^ :-)

squeeble

  • *
  • Posts: 423
  • GOOGLE GODDAMIT!!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #46 on: 2008-01-10 06:16:50 »
I just wanted to say, next time you want to put something in that was said by another person use the insert quote function^^

I hope that wasn't pointed at me seeing as I clearly spelt "offtopic" not "quote".

I do know how BB code works.

The Black-caped Man

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • The time........has come........!
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #47 on: 2008-01-12 09:47:26 »
No it was pointed at Freman, the cool newbie.

Jari

  • Guest
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #48 on: 2008-01-14 12:53:46 »
[somewhat off-topic]
A slightly related, and very, very hilarious link that a friend sent me.

I figured that some of you might enjoy it.  :-D
[/somewhat off-topic]

obesebear

  • *
  • Posts: 1389
    • View Profile
Re: Real Life believes
« Reply #49 on: 2008-01-14 15:12:28 »
Lol, I've only read a little bit but those quotes are hilarious...and sad at the same time.  I refuse to believe people can be that ignorant and close-minded.  Please tell me at least some of them are made up....please.  There's even one guy saying we should revert back to having slavery.     

Sigh :|