crybabylu's tags:
Who's reading crybabylu (150):
 
I am going to reveal some things about my thinking here and some might think I am putting myself down, but I am not intending to.  I am only trying to attempt to explain my thinking.
 
 
 
I do have my own thoughts and feelings about things, but can't always explain them the way I want to.
 
 
 
I have taken different IQ tests and score between 129 -137, depending on the test.  Oops!  I just remembered that on one test, I scored 120. Sometimes I scored higher than other times because some of the questions happened to be about something I knew about. In my opinion.
 
 
 
So, one would think that with a little above average score, I should be able to grasp somethings, that for some reason, I have never been able to grasp.  Or at least hold onto it for very long.
 
 
 
 
One of these such things is the theory of evolution.
 
 
 
 
I do believe in evolution, but where it conflicts with my religious beliefs, therein lies the problem. However, I think that had I never been taught about creation,  I still wouldn't be able to grasp everything I have been told about evolution.
 
 
 
 
 
It is the evolution of man that gives me the trouble.
 
 
 
 
 
You see, I believe man has evolved over many, many years.  I do believe the earth is billions of years old.  I think the most widely thought, is at least five or six billion years old.  I think mankind is certainly older than several thousand of years that is taught by most "creationists". 
 
 
 
 
 
I know why I think some of these things, but mostly because it is just common sense to me.
 
 
 
 
Basically, I think God set the whole thing in motion, and then evolution took over.
 
 
 
 
To put things simply; I don't think that man evolved from the sea, although, I do think life did.  If that makes any sense the way I am stating it. I am refering to life in general.  Living things, but that doesn't neccessarily mean "human" life.
 
 
 
 
I would go as far as to say that we might be related to apes, because there seems to be some similarities.
 
 
 
 
But, I don't believe we ever came from fish.
( I remember being taught that in sixth grade, and my mind totally turned off that concept! )
 
 
 
 
For a little over a year now, I have been trying to read up on evolution.  There are some problems in my ability to comprehend it fully.
 
 
 
  Sometimes, it is a matter of terminology.  If I have to look up words I am not familiar with,  (which seems to come up a lot when studying on evolution ), then I get distracted from the concept because I am trying to learn the meaning of new words.
 
 
 
 
I am interested in evolution and want to learn more about it , because I would like to at least understand what each side of the issue is trying to say, so that I can have an opinion.
 
 
 
 
So, please tell me this.  They have books called.. "the computer for Dummies, they have so many things that say for Dummies.... Tell me, Do they have books on Evolution for Dummies?
 
 
 
Maybe that is where I need to start!...
 


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 28, 2008....
    It's not to complicated.  I don't think there is a for dummies book on it right now, but there are plenty of websites.  Still if comprehending it is your problem I suppose you could try reading books that are below your level.  Soemthing aimed at a middle school or high school level.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 28, 2008....
    Thank you, Sean.  I will check it out.
  • Actorguy said on Apr 28, 2008....
    Hey guess what crybaby.....check this out:
     
     
  • crybabylu said on Apr 28, 2008....

    Evolution For Dummies (For Dummies (Math & Science)) (Paperback)
    by Greg, PhD Krukonis (Author), Tracy Barr (Author)

    $9.95

    That is way 'cool' !

    Thanks, Actorguy, Now that's a book I can afford, and will buy!....

     

  • crybabylu said on Apr 28, 2008....
    free image hosting

  • bloc said on Apr 29, 2008....
    antimatter probably knows the best books on this topic. Let me poke him so he'll se this :)
  • Antimatter said on Apr 29, 2008....
    As an introduction, I would suggest Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller. I don't agree with his religious conclusions, but you may find the book helpful.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....

    Thank you bloc,and antimatter. I thought I understood it enough to discuss it, but I have been on some evolution websites, and I realized when the discussion got into depth, I didn't know didley!  So, I thought I needed to go back through it and read parts of it that are confusing to me.

    Thanks again.

  • bloc said on Apr 29, 2008....
    @antimatter

    That looks like a good book. I'm curious how he reconciles a personal God with his scientific views. I haven't read the book but it seems that he is arguing for a cosmic watch-maker kind of God, but not one that can defy the laws of physics and make miracles happen. Is this in fact what he puts forward in the book? If so, how is that reconciled with Christian beliefs?
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....

     

    Now, these thoughts that I found were interesting!

     

     It  basically says that when Earth originated about 4.5 billion years ago, the surface had a lot of volcanic action going on. Then after 2 billion years, the atmosphere contained basically 4 molecules: hydrogen, water vapor, CH4 and NH3. There were carbon compounds all over the place in rocks and stuff. then the seas formed from violent thunderstorms and the seas were formed. Chemical reactions took place in the seas that formed simple organic molecules like ones with carbon in them. Like carbon chains and stuff. nothing living yet...


    Then these reactions continued and larger carbon compounds were formed. Larger organic molecules like carbs, proteins, RNA and DNA. These molecules formed clumps and boundaries formed around, sealing them from the rest of the environment. Mutations occurred and permitted the clumps (aggregates) to copy themselves. This was the first kind of simple organism called coacervates, which give off CO2.

     As the atmosphere eventually started filling with CO2, those coacervates with mutations to perform photosynthesis thrived because they were the only ones that could use the CO2 to their advantage and make food from that. Since they were doing so well, they thrived and kept replicating themselves (with more mutations) and became widespread. Then the mutated ones could take advantage of this plant-like quality, and they used the oxygen that they produced to make their own food, much like animals - and us.


    These organisms are actually believed to have been engulfed by other organisms and still exist in a way today - as chloroplasts and mitochondria. So they became more complex that way.


    And of course, natural selection is the process which kind of singles out the organisms that have the advantage. Take a giraffe for example. I suppose giraffes originated from some horse-like animal, but if there were a whole bunch of horses out in the wild, and they ate up all the food that was on the low tree branches and were starving, those with the slightly longer necks could probably get a little more food because they can reach everything on the ground AND they have the added bonus of being able to reach stuff a little higher up - ensuring them a slightly longer life than those who would probably starve to death because they couldn't reach higher tree branches. So if they all died out eventually, and the horses with longer necks had more competition over food, then the horses with even longer necks would have more of an advantage. So like that, it repeats the process, and you end up with giraffes rather than the horses that you started with.
    Hope this sort of answers your question. If you put this into a larger scale, I guess it would make sense how like bacteria eventually turned into... us.

     

    There are discussions like this on different websites, so can you see how sometimes it gets kind of confusing?

  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    A good start would be ignoreing the origin of life until you understand things better.  Origin of life isn't part of Evolution despite them often being lumped together.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....
    Sean----What do you think of the "big bang theory"?  I have often thought that had some promise to it, because I could see that happening.
  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    The evidence supporting it seems pretty compelling to me, but the reality is that the big bang has (imho) very little to do with anything, and thus really isn't worth a lot of discussion.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....
    Thank you, Sean
  • bloc said on Apr 29, 2008....
    btw, the giant red text is hard to read.
  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    It is important to remember that evolution, the origin of life/biogenesis, and the Big Bang are all separate and distinct theories and one being false or questionable has little effect on the others.  A lot of times people who are trying to discredit one of these theories will attack through one of the other two.
     
    PS.  I concur with bloc on giant red text.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....
    I see what you mean about the red text. In drafting it the color didn't look as bright as it does once it posted.  I will fix it...Thanks.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....

    I just re-typed this entire thing, and it still came out red....I guess because I  had to have the original type there, so I would know word for word what I typed.

    I did add a little editing from my original version for clarity purposes, but I can't figure why it still came out in red,  when I was retyping it in black.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to make it hard to read when posting this, I was just trying to understand how html works with the colors inverted in.

    I do so appreciate your responses because I get tired of trying to discuss this subject and somewhere in the middle get stuck, because I have some learning gaps about it.

    I think what is confusing is to have been taught one way for so long, and then try to grasp it all ( because, one would certainly have to agree, it isn't exactly the way it is being taught by creationists.... not meaning to put them down, but the way they debate it has so many holes in it, that it is flat out ridiculous )....My brother for some time has been trying to straighten out the confusion with me, ( he believes it like it is taught by evolutionists ) ....but it is so hard to shake off some of the obvious fallicies I have been taught.

  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    It can be confusing.  Don't worry about it now, I doubt anybody is reading it anymore anyway, we're just commenting for future reference.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....

     

    Sean, when my brother and I was discussing this the other day, he referred to the speed of ligh by which information travels.  Am I saying that right?

  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    I'm not familar with that phrase myself.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....

    It was supposed to say the speed of light.

    I am standing in there while he is just finishing up a phone call, and I tell him about a website I had been on about evolution, and he proceeds to tell me points to convince me of evolution, and when he says that information that is gained is pretty advanced when studying the entire universe, and I am saying....." whoa whoa whoa, you don't have to convince me of evolution, I am just trying to reconcile it with what I have been taught on creation"..... I know I am daft on some things but, how we ever got on the subject of the speed of light, was way out of context if you ask me...

  • lfbno7 said on Apr 29, 2008....
    I'm interested in the Big Bang Theory, though it has nothing to do with evolution. I like physics. I read lots of books on it, and watch tv shows on Nat Geo or Science channel or wherever I can find them. When a certain predicted microwave pattern was discovered in the sky, it was considered to be as absolute a proof as there can possibly be that the Big Bang Theory is true, because that microwave pattern was predicted by the theory decades before it was found. So the Big Bang Theory is now considered as proven a law as the Law of Gravity. It is considered a scientific fact now, no longer just another theory. It has won its battle with the Steady State Theory.
  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    Well to be fair lfbno7 that is what a theory means, is that it is scientific fact.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....

    Sean---you beat me to that declaration or reminder, Thanks... See, I am yet again confused when referrng back to the big bang theory, and you said it was two different things, but I thought it was like a blueprint of DNA.

    That if you had a piece of that which broke off from a bigger portion that it could start the life all over again from the oringinal planet or whatever it came from...

    See how one could get confused....???

  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    No they are in no direct way related.  So put that right out of our head.  They are no more related than say Christopher Columbus "discovering" America is connected to America entering World War 2. 
     
    I suppose it's possible if Columbus had never found the US there would be no US and thus they couldn't have entered a war but really you'll just confuse yourself if you start thinking about it that way.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....
    Ok, Thanks...
  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    On second read I'm realizing I was unclear.
     
    Evolution is separate from the Big Bang is separate the origin of life.  These are all separate issues and need to be considered separately.
     
    In science once something is called a theory it's considered fact.  Big Bang, Evolution, Relativity these are all theories.  The science behind the atom bomb is a theory.  That was what I was correcting lfbno on.
  • lfbno7 said on Apr 29, 2008....
    You weren't correcting LFB on that. You have it wrong, which is par for your course. There was a Steady State Theory and a Big Bang Theory, and the Steady State Theory lost out.

    A scientific law, as understood a generation ago, was a theory proven correct. These days even the laws are up for discussion, which makes the theories even more tentative. But a law is less tentative than a theory.

    There can be two or more theories to explain one thing, such as the Steady State Theory and the Big Bang Theory to explain the origin of the universe as we know it, but there cannot be two contradictory laws to explain the exact same thing. One theory becomes a law if it gets enough proof behind it, and the other theory gets tossed in the garbage.

  • kumarilata said on Apr 29, 2008....
    i believe god created the world and all life = Lata
  • bloc said on Apr 29, 2008....
    "A scientific law, as understood a generation ago, was a theory proven correct. These days even the laws are up for discussion, which makes the theories even more tentative. But a law is less tentative than a theory"

    This isn't quite right. Clearly laws weren't proven correct as we found out with newtonian physics. Nothing is proven absolutely unless we are talking about abstract things like math, and then I'm not sure that is even absolute. Scientific theories are backed by significant empirical evidence. The theory may not be perfect, it may not even be right, but I wouldn't bet against it. 

    Theories that are wrong are almost always wrong in ways that aren't black and white. Newtonian physics is wrong under certain circumstances that weren't anticipated, but will still give accurate results for almost all of the things we do in our day to day lives (fire guns, fly airplanes, drive cars, etc). Here is a more technical explanation. 

    I'm confident evolution will go down a similar path. In general what we know today will turn out to be right. 
  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
    What bloc said only much ruder cus I think you're an idiot and he's under the mistaken hypothesis that you're human.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 29, 2008....

    Sean I am kind of surprised at that word.  I admit I know even less than I thought I knew, and am looking for answers, and you aren't calling me an idiot. Which some could since I should have been able to explain my position on evolution by now. I have heard about the theories since the sixth grade. 

    lfb is not calling you anything similar, unless I don't read it the way you do. Surely, you don't think that, do you?

  • SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....

    *Trout smack*  I wasn't calling you that!  I was calling lbfno7 that. 

    bloc even quoted lbfno7.

  • bloc said on Apr 29, 2008....
    hehe, ok, I"m going to put @soAndSo in front of all my comments. I thought the quotes made it clear, but this is hte second time it's caused confusion today :)
  • lfbno7 said on Apr 30, 2008....
    Bloc I don't know what you're objecting to in what I wrote. I think you misread what I wrote. I'm just nothing but puzzled by your comment. What did you think I was saying? I said a generation ago people considered laws to be former theories that have been proven to be correct, but these days it is more complicated than that. I think you wrote the exact same thing but then seemed to say you are disagreeing. You said it isn't quite right. But then you said the exact same thing, that laws aren't always correct.
  • crybabylu said on Apr 30, 2008....
    Sean, I know you weren't calling me an idiot!  I just said that I was surprised you would think to call anyone that because this is just a discussion, I thought.
  • bloc said on Apr 30, 2008....
    @lfbno7
    probably a misunderstanding on my end. Your statement seemed to be diminishing the strength of a scientific theory. 
  • crybabylu said on Apr 30, 2008....
    Thank you, bloc, sean, lfb and everyone else for your comments.  I am going to lay down for awhile.  Please continue the discussion if you would like to...

Comment on "My Thoughts On Evolution"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

A documentary on the Disappearing Male....
revisiting mumbai 9/11 albeit with black humor...world reactions...and some general questions......
THERE'S FORGIVENESS AND THEN REHAB...
Hello, I am the only Sac Darwinist in the world.
My name comes from the term "Sac Religious". The people that follow Darwin's THERORY of evolution with a DEEP longing passion. Just as if it were a Religion. It brings a tear to my eye to see people c...

Subscribe to the SoulCast Newsletter To Receive the Best Uncensored Blogs About Love, Sex, Relationships, God, Politics, and More.


Ever wonder what people really think and how they really live?

Read about the real lives of regular people like you whose powerful moving blogs will make you smile, cry, emotional, and warm inside.

Your FREE SoulCast newsletter is just moments away. Receive your first feel-good blog by entering your email address below.

First Name:
Your Email:


You can unsubscribe at any time with one click. We NEVER sell or share your email address with anyone. Period. close