|
On December 28 2011 17:15 Shaetan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 17:00 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly, nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different. Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently. You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact. Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt? Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally. On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you. @Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf. At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up. Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point  The god made human ancestors and ape ancestors that are unique but not the same. No evidence for that.
I meant I do not know what you mean by the 2nd point, as in which is the 2nd point?
I might not understand what you mean. But I think I do, and I think you're not understand what I was saying. The ancestors of humans, monkeys, etc. other species were the SAME species. Which is right according to evolution, since species branch off into other species. So if I'm right, you misunderstood me.
On December 28 2011 17:19 Coramoor wrote:
thanks to fishgle and shaetan for concisely stating what i was struggling to
If you are referring to what you were saying to me, then it seems that I was saying the same thing? That evolution is a theory, because it has a huge amount of evidence, can be used to predict other things in nature, blah blah blah, and is unlikely to change or be proven wrong.
And I really hate that this is turning into a huge debate. All I wanted to point out to the OP is that, if he did not realize or was unaware, that many creationists (or even christians) share different views, and he may use that to his advantage to explain why evolution is real/true/a-fact/proven to her.
|
To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations.
|
On December 28 2011 17:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly, nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different. Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently. You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact. Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt? Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally. Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you. @Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf. At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up. Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point
Yoshi:
You misunderstand the scientific use of the word "theory".
Science is built on the reality-model system.
Scientists take the WHAT, they start measuring, getting facts about reality.
Then comes the WHY, the model, they try to explain the reasons of the gathered facts. These are called theories. If a theory goes against reality, it gets thrown away and new theories come.
If a theory is getting proven again and again, and is the latest, most modern view in science, it will still be called theory, like in the case of evolution.
|
Watch inherit the wind together :D
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On December 28 2011 17:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly, nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different. Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently. You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact. Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt? Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally. Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you. @Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf. At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up. Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:04 dronebabo wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. this is so wrong this is so wrong Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. It's important to note that the only things that can actually be "proven" with absolute certainty are in mathematics and logic, because you can write formal, abstract proofs. Science doesn't work in this manner, but evolution is as well-proven as science can possibly offer. In the same way that scientists "believe" in gravitational theory and the atomic theory, yes, the word "belief" exists. But this level of belief is not the same level as belief in Creationism, because (as I said before), they are not on par with one another. Evolution (and other scientific theories) are indeed well-established with empirical evidence (as you pointed out), but Creation stories are based on supernatural claims and religious faith. I only want to be very careful when we talk about "belief", as it's very easy to equivocate and misconstrue between "believing" in science (for rational, empirical reasons) and "believing" in religious, faith-based claims. They are not the same, so I prefer to use two different words altogether ("accepting" science vs. "believing" religion, as explained beforehand). On December 28 2011 16:50 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote:
so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life. Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution. you certainly could, but at this point, 2011, i think with all the research that has been done, if there was any serious doubts about the science, then an alternate theory would've been put forward, with all the research we currently have and all the technology that exists i think you'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who has an alternate theory at the base level, I agree with you, and considering how successful and spot-on evolutionary theory has been, I don't see any other hypothesis coming around anytime soon ^^ Oops, I may have made a mistake. I was saying that in science, evolution cannot be called proven, but I mixed it up. It can be scientifically proven, but it cannot be proven as in the... you know. However, I still don't understand why I cannot call it "believing in evolution". Well, like you've said, you simply would like to use different terminology to show the different ways that you "accept" or "believe" in something, but I would like to use the term "belief" my own way -- accepting something that is not proven (not the scientifically proven kind of definition) as a fact or to be true. You are technically correct, the theory of evolution is only the best approximation known to man to explain the development of the world. There's always the possibility of some tweaks to the theory or adjustments to account for (as of yet unknown) outliers. And yes, people believe in evolution just like they believed the sun revolved around the earth and the world was flat - which science (in time) corrected/improved upon. It is perfectly reasonable for the majority of people to believe in what we know as the best approximation to reality - hell thats all physics is!
But yeah, I'll continue to believe the best known approximation until someone comes along and proves to me that there is a better approximation.
|
On December 28 2011 17:25 shindigs wrote:
To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations.
That's the strange thing, she's a little bit leery about religion but she says she just doesn't accept evolution. I don't think her teacher properly taught it, so maybe if I explained it better she might believe it. I'm discussing it with her right now and it's not devolving at all, she acknowledges that she's biased because of her religious upbringing so she wants me to show her proof.
|
On December 28 2011 17:25 shindigs wrote:
To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations.
exactly. if you realize that "life" and "evolution" aren't one time things, but an ongoing process, that existence depends on continuity, you can come to such marvelous conclusions, especially with regards to beliefs about god (who, if it exists, exists outside of time and space) and all that meta-philosophical stuff. :D
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
As long as she doesn't try and force it on you, you shouldn't worry about it. My family are devout christians and whilst they try and get me to talk about it here and there, for the most part they respect my own beliefs and leave me be. It doesn't have to be a problem as long as you both respect each other's freedom and free will to believe in whatever you wish.
|
|
|
evolution exists 100%. you can not deny it, as it is observable in a laboratory with any fast reproducing organism.
whereas, did humans evolve from monkeys...well that is, as plexa said, the best approximation known to man to explain how we got here. there is strong evidence that it is the case, however we dont know for sure.
i strongly dislike the term "belief in evolution" like it was santa claus or something. that being said i think you have to let her go, unless you really really like her or shes smokin'. denying evolution man...thats just a symptom of more problems down the road.
|
On December 28 2011 17:30 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:25 shindigs wrote:
To op: Religion and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hope yourself and your gf are aware of this.
If you accept the idea of God's existence, a lot of possibilities open up that don't contradict the theory of evolution. I'm not a theologist, but I don't think it's far fetched to think God could create the Earth starting at age 3,000,000 as he did Adam starting as an adult. That's just one of many simple assumptions you can make.
That's a compromise you can propose to your gf, because if she's going to do any kind of scientific research in college and beyond (ESPECIALLY in Biology), you have to accept organisms change and adapt over generations. That's the strange thing, she's a little bit leery about religion but she says she just doesn't accept evolution. I don't think her teacher properly taught it, so maybe if I explained it better she might believe it. I'm discussing it with her right now and it's not devolving at all, she acknowledges that she's biased because of her religious upbringing so she wants me to show her proof.
Small changes over small periods of time(which we know for sure exist) = massive changes over a deuce of a lot of time.
|
On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
Yes, evolution is a theory and you can't "prove" it in the sense that you can prove the pythagorean theorem given the axioms of euclidean geometry. And it is certainly possible that in the future, a more developed theory of how life came to be may look quite different than evolution right now (physics is a good example).
However, I'd like you to examine another thing that also cannot be proven: the principle of induction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Put concisely, why can events of the past be used to support predictions of the future, and why can "statistical" or "probabilistic" arguments be used? In fact, this is quite a difficult question especially if you take care not to be circular in your reasoning. However, it's essentially accepted by most rational humans and the theories of science rely on it (for example, for physics to make any predictions it must presume that the basic laws of physics wont change suddenly from one moment to the next).
As shown by experience, following this principle leads to better results. If you burn your hand when you put it in fire the first ten times, it's probably not a good idea to put your hand in fire again. Even though you can't prove that your hand wont miraculously be fine the eleventh time. You wouldn't place 50/50 odds that your hand won't get burnt.
Following this principle, when we choose between two beliefs we should weigh the evidence. By what other standard can a rational human judge? I think we can agree that evolution has an enormous body of supporting evidence. Moreover, I think we can also agree that in terms of the scientific or experimental method, religion does not have a good track record (relying mostly on word of miracles, internal/psychological accounts or transformations, ancient texts).
People don't believe in the Egyptian gods anymore, or the Native American myths,or any number of these things. The Greek myths were no longer fashionable once their civilization collapsed, you wont find anyone that seriously believes in Zeus or Apollos or whatever. However, their mathematical and scientific tradition have proven more enduring (examples include euclid, archimedes).
History shows that religious dogma either fades, morphs significantly (the types of Christianity in the US are much different than those practiced several hundred years ago), or can only be sustained by the force of powerful organizations. Time doesn't seem to erode mathematical or scientific truths in the same way, in a sense they are less dependent on culture and context (euclid's investigations of the prime numbers comes to mind).
Of course there are questions of morality, metaphysics, and other things that have concerned humans for a long time. Philosophy has a long tradition of great minds that have struggled with these topics and written extensively on them. More recently, studies in psychology and neuroscience may pave new roads to understanding.
There is a great tradition of human thought and reasoning and a huge amount of knowledge built up by the most brilliant minds over at least two thousand years. All it takes is some intellectual humility to look beyond one's local dogmas (including and going beyond religious beliefs) and see the big picture.
|
On December 28 2011 17:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:15 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 17:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 17:00 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly, nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different. Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently. You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact. Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt? Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally. On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you. @Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf. At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up. Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point The god made human ancestors and ape ancestors that are unique but not the same. No evidence for that. I meant I do not know what you mean by the 2nd point, as in which is the 2nd point? I might not understand what you mean. But I think I do, and I think you're not understand what I was saying. The ancestors of humans, monkeys, etc. other species were the SAME species. Which is right according to evolution, since species branch off into other species. So if I'm right, you misunderstood me.
But that ignores the evidence to the contrary, e.g. that chimps were human ancestors (to put it simplistically). Like you can't arbitrarily create an explanation that ignores evidence.
|
On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
Well...what do you believe in? Calling it anything more than hypothesis would be far-fetched.
|
I'd break up with her. Hell I'm going to be a scientist, wouldn't want to live with a moron that neglects everything I do my whole life because of a ridiculous book and childhood brainwashing. It would be like living with a girl that believes everything in the Harry Potter series is true and wears a hat and a wand and searches for her lost mates.
I have no problem with religious people in general, one of the girl I love believes in some sort of God but she believes in evolution also. If only people weren't blinded by their beliefs and could still use their own brains.
|
On December 28 2011 18:00 Stratos wrote:
I'd break up with her. Hell I'm going to be a scientist, wouldn't want to live with a moron that neglects everything I do my whole life because of a ridiculous book and childhood brainwashing. It would be like living with a girl that believes everything in the Harry Potter series is true and wears a hat and a wand and searches for her lost mates.
I have no problem with religious people in general, one of the girl I love believes in some sort of God but she believes in evolution also. If only people weren't blinded by their beliefs and could still use their own brains.
I thought the same thing for a while, but I realized that no one is perfect.
Of all the problems in the world, being close to people with a stupid belief here or there isn't that bad.
Preaching, however, is a different story.
|
oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
|
On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote:
oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god.
There are plenty of scary things in the world.
Sometimes, it's easier to live a lie than face a sad truth.
|
On December 28 2011 18:06 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 18:04 Piste wrote:
oh my.. man I really can't understand how there are so many people believing in god. There are plenty of scary things in the world. Sometimes, it's easier to live a lie than face a sad truth.
This.
oh yeah, and to the people misusing the term theory
theory noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
When speaking about evolution, I find it funny that creationists etc. like to use the 2nd meaning instead of the first, when the first is more proper.
Source
|
On December 28 2011 18:03 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 18:00 Stratos wrote:
I'd break up with her. Hell I'm going to be a scientist, wouldn't want to live with a moron that neglects everything I do my whole life because of a ridiculous book and childhood brainwashing. It would be like living with a girl that believes everything in the Harry Potter series is true and wears a hat and a wand and searches for her lost mates.
I have no problem with religious people in general, one of the girl I love believes in some sort of God but she believes in evolution also. If only people weren't blinded by their beliefs and could still use their own brains. I thought the same thing for a while, but I realized that no one is perfect. Of all the problems in the world, being close to people with a stupid belief here or there isn't that bad. Preaching, however, is a different story.
The problem that i have is that if i decide to have children with that sort of woman, what kind of religion she'll be proselytizing to my child. Whether she'll force feed her own dogma or allow the child to grow up without the indoctrination and then allow them to choose later in life. If i didn't want to have children i guess that would be an issue i couldn't care less about, but not accepting evolution is a deal breaker for me as an engineer and an atheist. Funny though that they compartmentalize the theory of evolution while ignoring all the other theories that they accept which also enhance their lives (in the form of technology).
Also to the people debating the creationist, i salute you. I really cannot be bothered trying to argue with that kind of person. No amount of evidence will ever convince them. Nothing will ever be good enough for them to be convinced. Yet the hypocrisy that they have when they believe in god and their own religious text is truly hypocrisy at its finest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
