HOW do I know who to BELIEVE?

Question

Okay look at my last question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArSJHS2SPQhYk6b4R1GhZz3sy6IX?qid=20070702134125AAWbCjE

SOME people tell me that we've foudn the missing link. SOME tell me we haven't. OTHERS tell me there's no such thing.

THEN I started to read the links people gave me. SOMEONE mentioned LUCY so I googled LUCY and the first link was in support of LUCY being the MISSING LINK and the second and third says that LUCY proves nothing.

HOW ON EARTH am I supposed to sort through ALL THIS INFORMATION when so much of it CONTRADICTS but it all claims to be SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE??

Answer 1

Take a board approved college class. It can help.

Answer 2

The scientifically accurate stuff is coming from the scientist that actually write the peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Anyone can shout out "Is Not!" and probably put enough twaddle around it to sound 'scientific' to the layperson, but for some reason they fail to publish any peer reviewed papers on the subject. Probably because their lies and half truths would get ripped apart by real scientist who know what they are talking about.

We have found thousands of missing links for all sorts of animals. We have clear transitory species from the early primates though to man.

Take a look at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

The creationists claim that all skulls are either human or ape, and classify them as such. But here we see two things:

First, obviously they can not agree which are which. Something that the scientists have no problem with.

But more subtlety, look how the consensus of opinion amongst the creationists changes. The oldest fossils mostly defined as an ape, the youngest fossils are mostly defined as human, with the split changing with the age of the fossil.

So the oldest fossils are the most ape like, the youngest are the most human and the ones in the middle are somewhere in between. This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. Unwittingly the creationists have actually confirmed human evolution.


If you have questions then Talk origins is a good place to answer them.

Here are responses to most of the creationist claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Most have links to scientific bodies and papers. something generally missing from the creationist sites.

Answer 3

That is an easy one... believe NOTHING.

'Belief' is the ILLUSION of knowledge. In science, theories occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Lucy is a 'fact'. The alternative explanations of what Lucy represents are 'hypotheses'... essentially, educated guesses. Hypotheses that exhibit the appropriate level of scientific rigor (as determined by peer review) and make predictions that end up being verified, grow up to be theories. It is possible for competing theories to exist, each attempting to explain the same set of facts. It just takes a while for these things to sort themselves out. But, in any event, even if there comes a time when there is only one theory left standing, it does not mean that it is 'true'... it only means that the scientists are confident that they are on the right track. They could still be wrong.

Scientists do not purport to be providing us with with truth... everything that science tells us about nature is an approximation. Scientists know this. It is only the scientifically ignorant who tell us that science claims to tellus the 'truth'... science does not claim that at all. Science tells us something like this: "From the facts that our available to us, and as of our analysis of those facts, to the extent that we are able to analyze them in the context of what we think we 'know', THIS is what we think is the idea that best explains how those facts got to be facts.

So... don't 'believe'... just 'evaluate'... and decide which alternative provides the most satisfying explanation... for now... and be willing to change your mind, as better information and ideas become available.

Answer 4

It is better not to believe anything without credible evidence to support it.

Look for sources such as large accredited universities. Government funded Museums and Scientific journals which practice peer review.

You are right to doubt everything. The sad fact is humans lie all the time. Only by peer review and self examination can one sift through the lies.

Always check the original sources. If you can't find the original sources don't accept the data as credible evidence. Second hand evidence is worthless.

Also learn to identify logical fallacies. Reputable sources will not engage in logical fallacies while disreputable ones such as creationist web sites do so all the time.

Read books published by credible sources ( PhD in field ) . Professors at credible universities etc.

Answer 5

I answered you previous question and maybe I need to add some more thoughts to my answer. The whole point about the missing link is that it is missing, It seems that some believe we ascended from monkeys so then the evidence should be found in the archaeological digs of our times.
Some times in their efforts to prove their theory's men seem to jump to conclusions that are not really supported by the evidence found. case in point was the Forbes Trials The evidence that 19 renowned scientist base their opinion on was 3 teeth, just three teeth. Later to be found as pickerings teeth, Pigs teeth.
What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Answer 6

Pagan is right. Taking a college course could be helpful as it weeds out all of the 'opinions' and just gives you the science. Some links have agendas and others don't. Kallan gave a link to National Geographic, I would consider them a very good source of information. Keep sorting and you'll come to your own conclusion. I'm actually very proud of you for looking. Some people won't even do that. Good for you. Namaste

Answer 7

Why not try going to actual sources?
I believe I answered that q. Try Dikika Baby. There is no way that can be attacked.. the bones were fully fused together at death. You honestly should try to go looking for this in scientific journals, books etc.. this is not something you're going to find through faith or in a bible or through people on the internet who spout off the opinions of other religious people. It's a scientific issue.

Answer 8

The great thing about science is that it never pretends to be the end-all be-all answer. Science constantly evolves due to better technology, better thinking, or even just different thinking. Science constantly searches for answers, and true scientists are just as happy to be proven wrong as they are to be proven right. If evidence is found that changes a theory, science will go with it, because the ultimate goal is to understand, not to pretend that the answers found 2000 years ago have to be the right one, no matter what the evidence shows.

Answer 9

Read and try to understand the Quran ... it will guide you to the absolute truth and don't listen to anyone but the Quran. It is the Truth from our Creator and anything outside of it today are lies except the Torah and the Bible, which are not in their original forms today .... when the Messiah returns he will teach us all three and resurrect the truth once more.

Answer 10

You should research a little more. Use your brain. The previous poster's suggestion of taking a class is not a bad idea.