reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The negative is the opinion/fact that humans did not evolve from monkeys.
...I think I may have already explained this to you, but I'll just say it again. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that humanity evolved from monkeys.
We share a common ancestor with them
The other part is that human evolution isn't the main focus of evolutionary theory. We're just one out of a plethora of species.
Now, in this case you are arguing science rather than philosophy, so it gets interesting. There is plenty
of evidence and argumentation in
favor of evolutionary theory. In this case you'd have to attempt to falsify the work of evolutionary biology, as the scientific community has already
done their part to prove the theory.
The positive would be the so called "proof"(more like subjective evidence) that humans did evolve from monkeys.
Again with the straw man
. Even I
say that we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from
some sort of earlier primate, but it wouldn't be classified as a monkey.
Now, there is plenty of evidence
of evolution. It's not subjective, it's entirely
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Claiming data is cherry picked is a serious accusation.
[sarcasm] Yeah scientists "never" cherry pick data. [/sarcasm]
...um...so a sarcastic implication that scientists do cherry pick data proves your various serious accusation?
Here's the thing, scientists cannot
cherry pick data. Other scientists would catch it. It would actually be incredibly harmful for your
Now, can you provide evidence that scientists regularly cherry pick data?
Long story made short, I never really trusted science not because its wrong but many things about it just don't make sense.
That's because science is inherently counter-intuitive. It uses evidence to show that reason isn't necessarily on the side of things that 'make
And honestly, what about the scientific method doesn't 'make sense'? What is wrong with it?
Hell, if you don't trust it how can you explain the computer you're using? That was developed with the exact same sort of science that went into
It is more dogmatic than religion
Ok, that's a very serious claim
to make of the self-correcting process of science.
How is science more dogmatic than religion?
and has answers only in regard to what is convienent for the status-quo to have people believe.
Yes, it was really
convenient for Darwin to maintain the status quo.
It was really
convenient for Copernicus and Galileo to maintain the status quo.
It was really
convenient for Einstein to maintain the status quo.
I can give you countless examples of science crushing
the status quo.
Although I do not know all the answers at this point, I believe I know enough to know who is lying more and who is lying less.
Ok, where is your evidence to show who is lying and who isn't?
I have been on ATS for 3-4 years plus read many books, magazines, etc to reach the conclusion something is definitely wrong "somewhere".
Again, where is your evidence that "somewhere" is science?
I no longer feel confused, at least not as much as before!
So you question the entire basis of modern prosperity, yet you aren't confused? That's...confusing.
What about you?
I'm not all that confused. Well, some habits of certain individuals do confuse me.
You seem terribly frustrated and confused with your aggressive posting habits........
Yay, more psychoanalysis!
The only thing that frustrates me is ignorance.
As for my 'aggressive posting habits'? Well, what's so aggressive about them?
How ironic is it that it leaves "a hole" for atlantis and lemuria and that human history goes back WAY BEFORE the old testament and such?
...with absolutely no evidence to support such claims.
There are many legends of these people and the greatness they achieved, no?
There are plenty of commonalities in legend. Of course, the stories are all inconsistent.
The more likely explanation than 'this is all true' is that the human psyche tends to produce the same sorts of stories. Joseph Campbell did some
incredible work about this, particularly in his work "The Hero With A Thousand Faces".
Mainstream science has ignored this topic under "mythology".....
Because it is
Hey...wait, where'd the rest of my post go? You just cut from my comment on the source to my comment on the author without addressing the meaty parts
in the middle.
Why didn't you address my specific critiques of the source you provided?
Actually the older books are closer to the truth than today's books with a few exceptions here and there.
Um...no, they really aren't. Again, can you prove this incredibly ridiculous
Society keeps regressing rather than progressing.
Again, please provide evidence of this.
I mean, I can provide counter-examples. Art, science, technology, social progress, life expectancy, medicine, etc.