Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Teach both Theories


Celsus

Recommended Posts

Midnight, I have a problem accepting that you don't believe evolution is factual.

 

Surly;

 

I know that I'm pretty much viewed as the "enemy" in the Aexapo-Midnight Wars, but I believe that she can believe what she wants. I don't have a problem with what she believes, my problem is when she makes broad declarative statements about her perceptions as Truth, then cries persecution when her blatant mischaracterizations are called out.

 

But, I don't think either one of us will get through to her. I am holding out hope, though, that in her effort to prove me wrong, that she actually pays attention to the links that Asimov sent her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • a midnight star

    35

  • Asimov

    27

  • Amethyst

    12

  • Dianka

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Serenity....

I do not believe that evolution is factual. But see, I am able to acknowledge that I can be totally wrong. That is why it is in the grey. See, just because I do not believe that something is a fact, I do not say that it is false. It is still in the grey area.

 

Just because Midnight added the very democratic "I acknowledge that I can be totally wrong" doesn't mean that I should ignore the entire sentence before that. The real acknowledgement should be that she doesn't deserve the option to vote whether or not evolution is real.

 

I know it sucks, but we don't get to add our ignorant opinions anytime we feel the urge to and expect that they will be accepted as valid. That applies to any argument, and to any person.

 

It is a concession, but tell me what harm is done in saying "I don't know enough to make a statement on the matter, and I will not add to the debate." At that point, the person either chooses to look into the matter, or figures it is not important enough to do real digging. That saves any debate from turning into an ego-stroking opinion party.

 

She does eventually say that her mind could be changed, but not without stating her current ill-conceived position on the matter. AND her opinion will be amended by reading a few articles on the internet.

 

I am sorry for my passionate (pissed) reply, but this is the dumbing down of science that inhibits the real interpretation of scientific research. Reading a few articles on the internet does not constitute a valid impassioned search for the truth. The internet is not to be our only source of information. It is a starting point, and I hope Midnight realizes this.

 

Scientists do the best with what they have but some things cannot be proven.

 

I disagree 100% Everything can be proven. How much has been proven to this date? We are more educated today because the possibility of understanding anything drives us to try to know everything. Given the time and technology, nothing will be a mystery.

 

Surly;

 

I know that I'm pretty much viewed as the "enemy" in the Aexapo-Midnight Wars, but I believe that she can believe what she wants. I don't have a problem with what she believes, my problem is when she makes broad declarative statements about her perceptions as Truth™, then cries persecution when her blatant mischaracterizations are called out.

 

But this is the problem with everyone who has beliefs founded on Jell-o. They believe other things based on the previous ones. I am guilty of expressing uneducated opinions - everyone is. But every once in a while I would like to see some censorship out of respect for the people who actually give an educated shit about the topic.

 

And sure everyone is entitled to their opinions; opinions are unavoidable. But opinions don't make arguments. Conclusions based on efforts to find the truth are what should be voiced. You don't need a degree, just an education in the matter, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading a few articles on the internet does not constitute a valid impassioned search for the truth. The internet is not to be our only source of information. It is a starting point, and I hope Midnight realizes this.

 

True. Reading books is much better. Surely someone can provide a book list on evolution and pin it to the science section or something?

 

I disagree 100%  Everything can be proven.

 

Except for the existence or unexistence of anything resembling god. I don't think that can be proven either way.

 

But opinions don't make arguments. Conclusions based on efforts to find the truth are what should be voiced. You don't need a degree, just an education in the matter, that's all.

 

True enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the existence or unexistence of anything resembling god. I don't think that can be proven either way.

 

If there will never be a measureable argument for or against something, it does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no and I wasn't implying that it was a matter of whether or not evolution took place but that even in the scientific community there is disagreement, that's all.

I didn't read the entire thread, has someone eluded to it being liberal propaganda? 

 

A direct quote from the Midnight:

 

I know that there is alot of grey area. But for me the grey area isn't fake or factual. I know that they are, but I can't seem to get out what I want to say. Grey is that area where I put things that I am not sure about. I do not believe that evolution is factual. But see, I am able to acknowlege that I can be totally wrong. That is why it is in the grey. See, just because I do not believe that something is a fact, I do not say that it is false. It is still in the grey area.

For me a lot of the liberal propaganda that is going around has not be proven. And yes it would take facts to change my mind.

emphasis is mine

 

 

Back to your response

Because no, I do not think it is liberal propaganda, at least not to an unbeliever.  Also, I don't agree that evolution is illogical at all, but isn't there disagreement about "how" our evolution came about, within' the scientific community?  Honestly, I have no clue.

 

Okay, you're talking about two different things here -- 1) origin of life, and 2) evolution. Evolution does not explain how amino acids conglomerated in primordial mud, but it does explain how species have changed over the eons -- how does it do this? Through fossils. We can pretty much nail down when certain animals lived depending on where their fossils are. If a certain type of dinosaur is found at a certain level of strata, we can kinda pinpoint which age they lived in, and this is by knowing what age that layer of rock, etc., is.

 

What fossil records tell us is that certain animals lived at certain times, some of which do not exist today, and changes to certain species over the eons. Certain animals from today don't show up in those records, but we see animals that are similar to them, and in many cases, the fossil records show a progression -- where when you compare different fossils from different eras of similar species, you see how today's species X may have evolved from species Y eons ago.

 

There aren't complete fossil family trees -- a lot of the presumed "trees" have gaps, a lot of them have a LOT of gaps. Unfortunately, we couldn't get all the prehistoric animals to stand under live volcanoes or mudslides so that we could discover their bone structure later. Or, we just haven't discovered them all yet. But, the fossil records are clear enough to show the progression, or the change, from certain species to what is alive today.

 

We also know, from studying microorganisms (which, as single-cell organisms, live, reproduce, and die so quickly that we can actually monitor their change, or "evolution") that such change does happen. This is how bacteria, and other pathogens, can change in order to survive -- and that's essentially what evolution is: an animal species changing in order for it to survive.

 

Here's basically how it happens in a nutshell -- things don't just "change" like magic, and no one suggests that it does. Say, there's a bunch of tourists that get shipwrecked on a deserted island that nobody ever comes across for the next 10,000 years. Well, after about 5 years, all of the really lighter skinned people have died from melanoma, because the friggin' thing is on the equator. But about three people survived because their skin tone was slightly darker -- at least long enough to make some new babies. Well, each person has enough variance in their genetic code to make a WIDE range of different toned babies -- within a range, of course. With each generation on the island, the darker kids are less likely to get skin cancer, and are less likely to die young. Over time, the darker ones are the ones living, and the ones making the babies . . . until 10,000 years later, when they're spotted from a telescope on Moon Base #18, they're pretty damn dark.

 

Evolution isn't about a spotted hungry horse magically growing a longer neck all by his lonesome to reach the trees (so that we can call him a giraffe) . . . it's about species slowly evolving to survive. Those that don't . . . die. Period.

 

Whenever I do an internet search on evolution all I get are creation/evolution debates.  Someone gave me a great evolution link one time but I cannot find it, it was really a wonderful site.  Had a tree family type analogy.  It's here somewhere on a thread, just need to go through the archives and try to find it.

 

It was probably you that gave it to me...  This area of science though doesn't hold my interest, only gave my pov to show that I understand where Midnight is coming from.

 

I was born and raised on a pew, and went to an A.C.E. Christian church school from fourth grade till graduation. When I went to college, God was pretty much gone after about 2 years -- and I realized that I couldn't take ANYTHING they had to say about nature seriously.

 

Here's a few things I googled:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

 

http://www.becominghuman.org/

This one is interesting, it has an multimedia presentation

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

On the other issue, how did life begin? We know from the fossil records that at some point life wasn't here, and then later, it was. Since everything else seems to have occured according to the laws of nature and physics so far (no evidence of "magic"), we can only assume that life happened through nature as well. While no one knows for sure, there are some very educated guesses, which are far more complicated for me to explain . . . and none of them involve magic wands or hands of gods. Having no evidence of "intelligent design," and having ALL evidence point to the random acts of nature . . . we can only assume that the beginning of life was -- while rare -- an act of nature.

 

Evolution, however, is not a guess. The species that live today have not always been around. Of all the species that have existed, most are extinct -- but fossil records show that many of us had common ancestors. Change happens, and when it benefits a certain species, that species flourishes and reproduces. When it doesn't -- the species dies. Nature -- not having a conscience, doesn't give a rat's ass! LOL.

 

Hope this helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said, except that everything can be proven.

 

I will modify my statement a bit. I do believe that it is possible to prove / explain everything, but the goal of understanding every mystery may be unattainable due to ethical and theological beliefs.

 

 

Midnight gave some opinions from sources...

This is the beginning of the distortion of science. In order for us to have an educated opinion, we need to know the basis for any authority’s conclusion. If we do not have a solid grasp of why scientists came to their conclusions, our own perception is suspect.

 

 

so perhaps her information just doesn't match yours.

I don't have any information

 

 

Perhaps her knowledge that formed her current position isn't ignorant to her

No one states ignorant opinions knowing that the opinion is ignorant.

 

*A little aside: I am trying not to stereotype and make assumptions about any group, so I am directing all of my replies to what Midnight has said. I realize it may seem like an attack, but I only mean to argue that opinions about scientific research should only be made by people who invest the time needed to make a valid statement. I am not trying to make fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act as if you are talking for this entire forum. That is not true.  The single common denominator here is you! Nobody else in this discussion has a problem with me but you (and some unknown, to me at least whos only problem was the way I responded you and your personal attacks.

 

 

 

Lady I am afraid to discuss anything with you. You come across as caustic. Alexpo doesn't speak for the entire forum and I don't agree with him on many things, including politics in some cases, but I am sure I am not alone in ignoring your ass most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Science has now decided that NOTHING is fact. Since it keeps changing and new variables are now being discovered (bad choice of words, but the right one won't come) they are consistantly changing what they themselves believe to be true.

 

That is what I said, this is what Asimov said:

 

I'm not entirely aware of any scientists (although individual scientists might state this) who espouse anything in regards to theory as True™ or as fact. That is really the whole point with science is garnering new knowledge from studying the universe and seeing how we can improve the current theories.

 

So tell me what is the difference? Is there one? In the first quote I stated that science keeps changing. He said the same thing. THis is the statement that everyone has a problem with. Why?

 

It's always best to say "I don't know", it's better than saying "Evolution is wrong because science always changes".

 

I did state this, however, in my third post in this thread:

I personally do not believe in creationism, but nor do I trust evolution in it's entirety. I simply do not know, and science may think that they know, but only time will tell. I am not going to change my mind on evolution just because I am not an exer.

 

Imediately after I had showed my sources (from and atheist site no less).

 

So from the beginning I have said that I do not know. I have also stated that I am now questioning everything. I have also showed my sources from where science is changeing and what they percieve to be true has changed and will continue to change. Now explain to me how that is not a valid opinion, even when I state my sources?

 

I also stated this:

I am one of those who will question everything. If we do not take the time to ask "is this really truth" then we may miss out on some wonders.

 

Again, I state that I do not know and I am questioning everything.

 

I am not suggesting that there is some "god" who is master of all. But I do not close my mind off and say that evolution is correct either. I am simply honest enough to admit that I simply do not know and I am keeping my mind open towards other options.

 

throughout this entire thread I have said that I do not know. SO I do not understand the problem.

 

Since when are we not "suppose to" post our opinions? Since when is that a bad thing? I quoted my sources as well as posted the relevant paragraphs. But that is being unintellegent? Since when?

 

 

One last note:

The "liberal propaganda" comment was towards the political thread that aexpo had brought into this discussion. It was NEVER meant to mean that there was a "scientific left wing conspiracy". Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady I am afraid to discuss anything with you. You come across as caustic. Alexpo doesn't speak for the entire forum and I don't agree with him on many things, including politics in some cases, but I am sure I am not alone in ignoring your ass most of the time.

 

 

Really? I must say I am surprised. I have to wonder why when I opened up a topic just for this purpose, everyone is coming here to state this?

 

Question. When was I caustic in this thread before Aexpo came out with his post? Designed only to try and humiliate me? When have I ever gotten personal with anybody before they did it to me?

 

WTF? I am asking these questions in complete sincerity, not trying to be a smartass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I must say I am surprised. I have to wonder why when I opened up a topic just for this purpose, everyone is coming here to state this?

 

Question. When was I caustic in this thread before Aexpo came out with his post? Designed only to try and humiliate me? When have I ever gotten personal with anybody before they did it to me?

 

WTF? I am asking these questions in complete sincerity, not trying to be a smartass.

 

Eh, Midnight forget it. Who cares if people don't like you. You have the same right to be here that everyone else has.

 

And we are not here to powder eack other's bottoms. If two or more people disagree, things get heated.

 

Just keep on keepin on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midnight, the difference between yours and my statements is that a theory is Factual. It takes the evidence it has found and using the Scientific Method sees what it can conclude from them. The conclusion is the Theory, the evidence are the facts. Therefore, a Theory is factual, but is not ever 100% proven to be true because there is always something new to discover. This doesn't mean Evolution is wrong, nor does it mean that any theory that we currently have is wrong. It's just the best explanation that we have for the available evidence at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I must say I am surprised. I have to wonder why when I opened up a topic just for this purpose, everyone is coming here to state this?

 

Question. When was I caustic in this thread before Aexpo came out with his post? Designed only to try and humiliate me? When have I ever gotten personal with anybody before they did it to me?

 

WTF? I am asking these questions in complete sincerity, not trying to be a smartass.

 

 

Like I said I was afraid to reply to you. I don't want to come across as a bitch or a smart ass either. I didn't say what I said as an attack. Feel free to ignore me as I will continue to do with you from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, Midnight forget it. Who cares if people don't like you. You have the same right to be here that everyone else has.

 

And we are not here to powder eack other's bottoms. If two or more people disagree, things get heated.

 

Just keep on keepin on.

 

 

I agree!! I try to keep things on an abstract level. Not looking at who posted but instead of what was posted. I will disagree with somebody's opinion, but that has nothing to do with the person. My posts are not normally made to be towards anybody, but rather, towards the ideas posted. I really do not look first to see who posted. Just because I disagree with someone on an issue, does not mean that I think bad about the person. Make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for explaining that Asimov.  May I ask though, does it depend on the "field of science" of whether or not theory is factual?  On a radio station the a couple of weeks ago, a scientist was on explaining why one theory is considered "factual" whereas another "theory" is not.  I only caught the last 3 minutes of the show so I have no clue what the discussion was on and didn't catch enough for full definitions of what he was speaking about.  Perhaps you could clarify, if you can understand what I'm trying to ask for, that is.

 

 

Hm...I'm not entirely sure in regards to that. Some theories contain more evidence in support than others.

 

Look at abiogenesis...it's not a theory in and of itself, it contains many theories, none of them have a ton of supporting evidence.

 

Nobody can point at one theory which is still in progress and then apply it to another theory and say "see! Science is ALWAYS changing their minds!!!" That is not true in the least. Science is progressive and the scope of knowledge DOES change, but that's a GOOD thing.

 

It is too convenient for people to just naysay Science without actually understanding it, or attack a certain Theory "Evolution is full of holes", "Evolution has not been proven"...etc. without any more than 10 seconds of studying it.

 

I've spent 6-7 years....YEARS!! Studying Evolution and studying religion and studying science and I still don't understand a number of things. I don't consider myself a layman, but I am certainly not a professional.

 

Evolution is not a difficult concept to understand, but it does get very complicated and there are things people mention that I haven't heard of or don't quite understand (Ring species, for instance, I've been meaning to read up on that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can point at one theory which is still in progress and then apply it to another theory and say "see! Science is ALWAYS changing their minds!!!" That is not true in the least. Science is progressive and the scope of knowledge DOES change, but that's a GOOD thing.

 

But aren't they both still in progress? My only point was that we do not know what will be found in years to come. I agree that so far this is what science has come up with so far, who knows what will happen in years to come. Not just in this, but others as well.

 

It is too convenient for people to just naysay Science without actually understanding it, or attack a certain Theory "Evolution is full of holes", "Evolution has not been proven"...etc. without any more than 10 seconds of studying it.

 

I had more than 10 seconds of studying this. I had one (thank gods only one) college course in biology, but see the things that he said were true and factual have been completely contraticted by the link that you gave me. Even the link that you gave me stated that:

 

volution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts.

 

 

Hence my confusion and my orignal statement that it keeps changing. Or better yet, seems to keep changing because there are so many different thoughts on the matter.

 

I've spent 6-7 years....YEARS!! Studying Evolution and studying religion and studying science and I still don't understand a number of things. I don't consider myself a layman, but I am certainly not a professional.

 

I reconize this. This is the reason why I have defered and am willing to ask questions of you. There are not too many people that I am willing to ask and learn from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest misconception for evolution is that WE, humans, COME from Monkeys and Apes. But apparently monkeys and apes and humans have a common ancestor, we're not from monkeys and apes, we're from the same ancestor they are.

 

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/evolution/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A change in our understanding of a fact does not equate to a change in the nature of the fact itself. Gravity is. Evolution is. All the changes in our understanding of how these forces work will never alter the simple fact of their existence.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But aren't they both still in progress? My only point was that we do not know what will be found in years to come. I agree that so far this is what science has come up with so far, who knows what will happen in years to come. Not just in this, but others as well.

I had more than 10 seconds of studying this. I had one (thank gods only one) college course in biology, but see the things that he said were true and factual have been completely contraticted by the link that you gave me.  Even the link that you gave me stated that:

 

Oh my, this is fun!! I love this.

 

What I meant is that Evolution is much further along in progress than Abiogenesis. It is highly unlikely that something will come along that will absolutely destroy Evolution as we know it because it fits in the puzzle so well. Just like TO said, it unites all the fields of biology.

 

Even Newtons Laws are not wrong...it's just that Einsteins theory explains it better. Despite what may come along in the future, I doubt that a specific fact found could destroy the entire foundation of Evolution.

 

Hence my confusion and my orignal statement that it keeps changing. Or better yet, seems to keep changing because there are so many different thoughts on the matter.

 

There are many thoughts on the matter, but it's the foundation of Evolution in general that we must look at as well as the differing schools of thought. The differing schools of thought are the people who seek to falsify Evolution or aspects of Evolution (say for instance...punctuated equilibrium over uniformitarianism) by providing better explanations. I wouldn't be worried that in 100 years everyone will think we are descended from Tribbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be worried that in 100 years everyone will think we are descended from Tribbles.

 

Good gravy, man! I don't understand a frikin thing you have said!

 

And what the hell is a Tribble?!

 

:twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trouble with Tribbles

 

tribble.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the name on that Christian forum again: TribblesForces.com?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trials and Tribble-ations...

 

240x320.jpg

 

 

Is the Tribble the guy with the butt forehead, or is it the thing on his head?

 

Gravy, I am entering the realm of NERD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The furry balls are the tribbles, and the character in the picture is Quark. And he doesn't like the tribble that's on his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gravy, man! I don't understand a frikin thing you have said!

 

And what the hell is a Tribble?!

 

:twitch:

 

Tribbles are Star Trek fuzzies that were introduced in the Old Series with Kirk.

 

My point was that Evolution won't change drastically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.