Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying evolution is a religion, I'm saying people take things on faith when believing it, just like people take it on faith there is a God, or (some in the minority) seem to take it on faith that dinosaurs were human pets or whatever that was.
Well, it is true that we all take things on faith because we were taught those things by someone in authority. Every person is not an evolutionary scientist, so most people have not actually seen the evidence. But the people who are the scientists should not be basing their work on faith, and I think very few of them do. I would argue that all children need to understand and apply the scientific process. And all of us should be able to look at the evidence and determine for ourselves if the findings support the theory. We need to work toward a more evidence based society. And that means being flexible, discarding theories that aren't supported by evidence, and advancing new theories when necessary. I am really concerned about text books that advance creationism as though it were science. It is belief, and my understanding of it is that believers are not open to discarding their beliefs based on contrary evidence, so it just can't be labeled as science. Evolution has a huge weight of evidence behind it, although there are many individual links in the evolutionary catalog that have gaps. There are constant changes being made in how scientists see those relationships, based on evidence, and a lot of it recently has been based on DNA evidence. For example, we used to think that vultures were related to hawks, but then DNA mapping showed that they were actually more closely related to storks, and now that is being questioned. I'm not sure where they fit now. That kind of stuff is changing constantly, based on new findings.
Which is essentially all I'm saying. Darwin's Theory isn't a fact. I'm not saying anyone who buys into it is mentally challenged, or that it's all complete and utter rubbish, it's just not the infallible truth that many people in the world blindly claim.
I don't understand why so many people are getting so disgruntled over that simple little statement, when people such as yourself are essentially proving what I'm saying. Maybe they've spent too much time blindly arguing with whackos and nutjobs who believe we were brought here by little green men who used the Great Pyramid to control all of humanity from their secret base in Atlantis which now resides at the bottom of the Bermuda Triangle or some other far fetched theory that belongs in pulp science fiction novels?
Well, let me begin by saying that going back and re-reading the posts on this thread I realize, that while my arguments are sound, that I did tend to go after you with the assumption that you disagree with evolution theory because of some type of religious reasons. You didn't actually say that, so I apologize.
But if we are being honest, you are being COMPLETELY ingenuine with your arguments. I think that you are trying to rile people up so that you can get a debate going.
You know that a huge argument in this country right now is reality versus pseudo-religous-science. You say there are holes in Darwin's theory, but ignore any posts where people point out that "Holes" in a scientific theory do not discount it's basic truth. It only demonstrates the need to study more and find more answers. When someone (myself) points out that there are "holes" in our understanding of gravity and the function of germs, you ignore that completely.
You then regurgitate the arguments of religious nuts, such as; 1) the defintion of the word THEORY means it's not proven (this is false), 2) It takes FAITH to believe in science (this is false), 3) Gravity can be PROVEN, evolution can't (this is false). You give us ample context clues that you are arguing from a religious point of view, then criticize us for our assumptions. You are quoting from the religious nut handbook, then wagging your finger at us for "stereotyping" you. This is very tricky on your part, considering the fact that you knew what our assumptions were, but didn't do anything to dispel them. You allowed us the assumption, and did not clarify, in order to keep the argument going. You are like the person who goes to a party and says "I don't eat meat." then spends the rest of the night criticizing people for assuming you are a vegetarian.
In particular, I pointed out to you that evolution does not discount the belief in god, or that evolution was god's tool for creating life on earth. I also pointed out that there are really only 2 views on how life began, 1) evolution, 2) God. I specifically asked you to clarify your position. Rather than continue with the assumptions, I CLEARLY SAID "so, tell us what the assumption is? there are only 2 sides to the issue, you are against one, so tell us what side you are on." Many people asked you to clarify so we wouldn't continue making assumptions, but you wouldn't clarify. Then you criticize us for making assumptions. Don't cry out that we are big old meanies when you puposely confuse and inflame us.
To sum up, you are basically the little brother right now, who on long car rides will point his finger at your face, careful to keep it half a centimeter away from our nose, and saying over and over "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." Then you feign surprise and hurt feelings when people blow up at you.
To sum up, evolution is good science. There are no more holes associated with it, then there are in other scientific theories, such as gravity, or that HIV causes AIDS. There is a lot about science we don't know, and that's what is great about science. Science is not so entrenched in Dogma that when a new basic truth is discovered scientists can't bend to accept the new information. Too bad the same can't be said about religious dogma. And yes, when someone comes out and says "well, evolution could be wrong, we just don't know" then I treat that person the same way as if they said "Did you know that the 7 billion people on earth all descended from Adam and Eve?".
And just because someone doesn't know all the details of evolution, doesn't mean that you can say "well how do you know the science is good". I don't know everything there is to know about an internal combustion engine, but I don't think my car is a magic chariot. I don't know how to wire a house for electrity, but I don't think that a light bulb is Jesus shining down on me. It is impossible for one person to know all the intricacies of every scientific field out there. That doesn't give them a free pass to fall back on superstition.
And by the way, you made assumptions about me too buddy. So your hands are not exactly clean. Although you try to pretend that you are just attacked and put upon and persecuted. You dished it out too, so let's avoid the hypocrisy, shall we?
I reiterate my original point; believe what you want. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. There will always be a minority of forward thinkers who contribute their intelligence and ideas to the betterment of mankind. And the majority of the population will happily sit in their ignorance and pray to jesus, or allah, or zeus or shiva. That's just the way of things. Nothing to look at here folks, keep moving on.
Fantastic post, JayBrown80. I'm so weary of years of attempting to explain scientific theories, especially evolution and global warming, to people who can do no more than parrot what they read on religious or conservative blogs, I'd have never been capable of elucidating the fundamental points that pertain to this thread the way you did. Muy bueno!
Which is essentially all I'm saying. Darwin's Theory isn't a fact.
You also need to understand the definition of hypothesis:
hy·poth·e·ses1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
hy·poth·e·sis
1.a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena...accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
The thing about science, including the Theory of Evolution, is that the theories purported are tested to be proven or disproved, unlike what the article the original poster linked to was addressing.
Fantastic post, JayBrown80. I'm so weary of years of attempting to explain scientific theories, especially evolution and global warming, to people who can do no more than parrot what they read on religious or conservative blogs, I'd have never been capable of elucidating the fundamental points that pertain to this thread the way you did. Muy bueno!
You also need to understand the definition of hypothesis:
hy·poth·e·ses1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
hy·poth·e·sis
1.a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena...accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
D
I fully understand the meaning of both words, and did a long time ago. Not sure you are grasping the meaning of the words used in their definitions, however, if your intent is still to argue that Darwin's Theory is a fact. Either way, thanks for quoting the dictionary here to further clarify my point.
Fact -noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth.
2.something known to exist or to have happened. prob·a·ble
[prob-uh-buhfile:///C:/Users/Mike/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif (broken link)l] –adjective
1. likely to occur or prove true.
2.having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt. the·o·ry –noun
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
Now, if you could be so kind as to show me where it says a theory or a hypothesis is indeed a fact, I'll concede the point to you...
if you could be so kind as to show me where it says a theory or a hypothesis is indeed a fact, I'll concede the point to you...
Nobody should assert that a theory is a fact.
I kind of lost track of what it is you're arguing for as an alternative to evolution. There is currently no competing theory for how things came to be as they are today. Evolution is such a robust theory that it isn't challenged any more by anyone who is seriously interested in science. What IS challenged about evolution is the minutiae, the details. What we know of evolution today will scarcely resemble what we know in 50 years, just as current evolutionary theory scarcely resembles what was believed in Darwin's time.
However, Darwin's fundamental proposition that species change via the process of natural selection has never been dismissed and no alternative has stood the test of scrutiny. Natural selection as understood by scientists in the time of Darwin was somewhat different to our current understanding, as we now know that it's far from a random process of individual mutation and accidental beneficial genetic shifts.
For example, a species can evolve in the absence of ANY change in its genetic code. There are new breakthroughs in biochemistry, microbiology, genetics, and other fields that are shedding new light on the extraordinary complexity and flexibility of cellular physiology. A recent study has found that so-called "junk DNA" --- thought to be useless strands of base pairs only 2 or 3 years ago --- is actually functional in ways never previously conceived. The discovery of micro-RNA is at the root of this exciting breakthrough in the study of genetics.
The point of all the above is that every new discovery underscores the validity of the theory of evolution. New breakthroughs generally result from prior understanding of evolution. If Creationism were the rule of scientific inquiry we'd be living in the Stone Age because Creationism is void of predictive value and offers no clue as to how the natural world functions.
I kind of lost track of what it is you're arguing for as an alternative to evolution.
I wasn't. People jumped to that conclusion and started slinging mud. I was simply stating that it isn't a fact, and that it amuses me that some people act like it's a proven, undeniable truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tongpa-nyi
Evolution is such a robust theory that it isn't challenged any more by anyone who is seriously interested in science.
No offense, but that's not true. Maybe in your experience you've never encountered someone who doesn't fit that mold, but there are plenty who do not. Granted, they are in the minority, but that really has no bearing on the truth.
There is currently no competing theory for how things came to be as they are today. Evolution is such a robust theory that it isn't challenged any more by anyone who is seriously interested in science. What IS challenged about evolution is the minutiae, the details. What we know of evolution today will scarcely resemble what we know in 50 years, just as current evolutionary theory scarcely resembles what was believed in Darwin's time.
Well said. Actually, I agree with your whole posting, just didn't want to repeat it all here. There are certainly many disagreements among the scientific community about specific lines of species development, about the fossil record, etc. I just saw a show last night about two competing hypotheses about the development of the first flowering plant. Neither scientist would dispute that plants have evolved over time, or would dispute the idea of natural selection. They just disagree on how it played out. That is how science works. And it is good to have competing ideas. But, as you said, I know of no evidence based theory that is competing with the overarching theory of evolution.
For me, the original posting really is a call for better science programs and text books in schools and educational opportunities for the general public. There will always be people who think that early people hunted dinosaurs, but I would hope that their numbers are decreasing. The more people are educated about the scientific method and evidence based decision making, the better off we will be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't cry out that we are big old meanies when you puposely confuse and inflame us. 
