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.
That's a contradictary statement. I agree with pretty much everything else you said, except for that. That's like saying the reality is there is no reality. I don't think there are absolute truths either, but I won't say there are none.
To me, there's a difference between a 100% rational truth based on evidence, investigation, and experimentation and a 100% truth in which we assume that no matter what it cannot be wrong. Does that make sense?
To me, there's a difference between a 100% rational truth based on evidence, investigation, and experimentation and a 100% truth in which we assume that no matter what it cannot be wrong. Does that make sense?
Yes, I just have a habit of pointing out the contradiction in the statement when people say it, lol.
Haaziq, that is all that I am saying is that science is never 100% accurate or 100% fact. Can they be really close, sure, but undebateable, it remains to be seen. I have never been to NYC, I am sure one of these days I will. And when I do, I will try and get over to that museum. I always liked going to the Museum of Science and Industry as well as the Field Museum when I lived in the Chicago area.
This is for Haaziq and GCS, I have no problem with evolution for the most part. I can see that things evolve over time. Even as people, we get smarter, taller, bigger etc. It happens, my problem is with the theory of us coming from monkey's. Let's throw out that I feel it is impossible because God did create us, well in my opinion of course. If we did evolve from monkey's, why are they still around? That is my biggest question. If something evolved, wouldn't the new thing take the place of the old? That is me just trying to think logically. Yes I know our DNA is close, but at the same time, there is a ton about DNA that we don't even know about, even though the advances now are great. I am sure you can quote scientists that give reasons why monkey's are still around, but if you just think in the context of that, it does raise some questions.
Speaking of the flood, now if my memory serves me, that a ton of water just did not appear from no where, it did have to rain for a while to get that flood. So even if someone on the earth at the time did not believe in God, they could say that there is a perfectly good scientific explanation for all this rain because of the high and low pressure systems or what have you. ( Sorry, I am not a meteoroligist.) So even if you were there to see it, if you were you wouldn't have been for long, but you could still doubt. What I am saying is God created and uses nature. The same nature that science tries to prove that there isn't a God. You can over analyze something to death just to try and find a conclusion that fits the mold of saying God didn't do it, that it is just from nature.
One of the main problems that I do have in science that nothing is unexplained, someone always just makes a new group for it, comes up with a classification, or some reasoning for it. I think some try to be smarter than they really are. Take the medical field for example, you just can't have a bad ass kid (sorry) they have to be diagnosed with ADHD. People over think too much. Everything has to be classified. Regardless of how smart people are, there aren't answers for everything.
First of all, evolution is a fact. The process through which it occurs is a theory. That can be observed by looking at the fossil record. Chiseling a message saying something happened in an area proves nothing. I can write a message on your wall saying, "I beat (insert your name) up here" but that doesn't make it true. That leads back to what I said earlier about following fairy tales and just using fill in the blank formulas and attempting to pass it off as evidence. It doesn't work.
Evolution is not a fact far from it. Even Darwin said if his Theory were true there would be and abundance of trans species found in the fossil record. That has not happened, and the best your guys can come up with is trying to make extinctd mammals in to swimimg whales. And doing this with out any evidence. Your evidence is but speculation. For years we were forced fed how we would never find soft tissue in Dinosaurs bones because the Evolutions told us that soft tissue would be long gone before 10,000 years passed. Yet now, they have discovered soft tissue in dinosars bones and these same Evolutions are telling us soft tissue can now last 70 million years. I swear, you people will believe anything as long as it supports your belief system. Where is the study on soft tissue, where is the science that confirms this finding, oh thats right, you don't need a study, you just need someone in a lab coat to spread his opinion and that's the study. The soft tissue confirms the Biblical account that Dinosaurs were on the earth not millions of years ago but thousands, the Bible also told us that dinosaurs skin was made up of scales, science did not know this until a recent discovery showed us are first dinosaur mummy, and again, it confirmed the Biblical account. And that was dinosaurs did have scales. The only fairy tales I see being confirmed come from your soto science. The Bible again is proveing to be right on the mark. And science once again is proveing itself to be the ones who ignore solid evidence.
Haaziq, that is all that I am saying is that science is never 100% accurate or 100% fact. Can they be really close, sure, but undebateable, it remains to be seen. I have never been to NYC, I am sure one of these days I will. And when I do, I will try and get over to that museum. I always liked going to the Museum of Science and Industry as well as the Field Museum when I lived in the Chicago area.
The museum in NYC is one of the best I have ever been to. Seriously... it's worth the trip to NYC in and of itself if you are into that sort of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HsvMike
This is for Haaziq and GCS, I have no problem with evolution for the most part. I can see that things evolve over time. Even as people, we get smarter, taller, bigger etc. It happens, my problem is with the theory of us coming from monkey's. Let's throw out that I feel it is impossible because God did create us, well in my opinion of course. If we did evolve from monkey's, why are they still around? That is my biggest question. If something evolved, wouldn't the new thing take the place of the old? That is me just trying to think logically. Yes I know our DNA is close, but at the same time, there is a ton about DNA that we don't even know about, even though the advances now are great. I am sure you can quote scientists that give reasons why monkey's are still around, but if you just think in the context of that, it does raise some questions.
Mike, I'll take it easy on you because you've been a great sport and, quite honestly, you've been quite amicable. I will go as deep as you'd like me to in explaining it if you so choose but I will respond very simply in regards to your question:
We did not evolve from monkeys. That is not the theory. That is not the presupposition. It is in no way what any evolution scientist proposes. That does seem to be one of the gravest pitfalls that people cannot get over in terms of a basic understanding of ancestry from common descent.
When you go to the zoo and you see the monkey's flying around in their cage, we do not consider them to be "grandparents" of some sort. They are more like cousins. We are classified as primates ALONGSIDE modern day monkeys. We both had a common descendant that was "ape-like" in nature.
I use this example a lot because it's an easy one to 'get'. A lot of scientists like to use maggots, fruit flies, and other boring animals to justify things and I always find that a bit repulsive and boring. That's just my opinion. Although there's a lot to be said behind genetic research in fruit flies and maggots I like to use dogs as a better example because they're a little more "connectable".
Now, what you are referring to is essentially an argument from Creationism 101. Sorry. It is. And, that's fine, I don't expect people to know all the little intricate details about evolution (and by no means am I an expert - just a hobbyist). So, let me reword this in a little bit different fashion. Your argument provides as such:
If chihuahua's evolved from great danes than how come there are still great danes? Now... take a second and think about that. Why would we still have chihuahua's and great danes? Do we suspect that great danes gave birth to a chihuahua one day? No, that would be pretty absurd and as such so would the presupposition that a monkey "spit out" a human one day.
Rather, it's better to say that all common domesticated dogs evolved from a dog-like creature (a wolf). Do you see where this is headed? However, there still leaves the mark of "So did a wolf give birth to a chihuahua?" NO! That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that wolves were selectively bred (and this is why we have such great variation in a relatively short amount of time - 10,000 years or so) for a certain purpose. The purpose for some might have been that certain wolves with certain traits displayed better characteristics than others. However, they may have also shared genes for being smaller, larger, hairier, whatever...
As a result, and because humans were so interactive with the selective breeding procedure of wolves, we had a distinctly fast variation in the sub-species of the canine. I must point out that I always found it fascinating that since humans were interactive with this process, and humans are "natural", that a driving force of "natural selection" seemed to be at work anyway. That's just my opinion and many would be inclined to disagree with me. We call it artificial because we are doing the "picking". However, the true natural selection (nature picking only the "most suitable" genes) is what drives this forcible evolution.
So, what can we make of all of that? Well, we know that chihuahua's were not born of great danes. We know they weren't born of wolves and yet, if we were to look into some sort of "record book" for the chihuahua we might find many sorts of intermediates. That record book is usually called the fossil record. Would we expect to find a half-wolf/half-chihuahua? I wouldn't think so... I'd rather think that we'd find a small dog looking more like a chihuahua. So... with all of that being said, where does this leave us with monkeys?
Well, just as the monkey is a relative of ours in the same way that a great dane is a relative of the chihuahua, we can see that there are many 'branches' of evolution. One final product is not the end all be all of it. It's merely a continuing process that can lead to any number of different outcomes. The outcomes from our common ancestor led to the emergence of the chimpanzee, orangutan, gorilla, and yes, we humans. That common ancestor is no longer existent except in the fossil record.
Now... why do we still have wolves if we have chihuahua's?? Do I really need to answer that? Ok.. I will anyway. Because, wolves are creatures found on all parts of the planet. They didn't collectively get together and decide to start being friendly with humans. It was a result of the changing ecology of their, well, ecosystem. Just because one ecosystem changes on one part of the planet does not mean it will change on other parts of the planet. Hence, the factor driven for natural selection is played in large part by the locality of the ecosystem and the species within it.
Ok... I can go deeper if you want, but if this didn't make sense I can clarify, or if you'd like me to go further than I can. The choice is yours
Quote:
Originally Posted by HsvMike
Speaking of the flood, now if my memory serves me, that a ton of water just did not appear from no where, it did have to rain for a while to get that flood. So even if someone on the earth at the time did not believe in God, they could say that there is a perfectly good scientific explanation for all this rain because of the high and low pressure systems or what have you. ( Sorry, I am not a meteoroligist.) So even if you were there to see it, if you were you wouldn't have been for long, but you could still doubt. What I am saying is God created and uses nature. The same nature that science tries to prove that there isn't a God. You can over analyze something to death just to try and find a conclusion that fits the mold of saying God didn't do it, that it is just from nature.
I understand what you are saying but we can't just "throw God" into the mix when we're talking about science. We can't really prove it. Ken Miller used a fantastic example in the Dover Trial in Pennsylvania. He is a devout Catholic by the way.
He said, and I'm paraphrasing here:
"I am a die hard Red Sox fan. For years, I anguished from defeat after defeat from the New York Yankees. People prayed to the baseball gods for years for them to deliver a World Series victory. Finally, in 2004, they finally pulled through and did it. Now, for all intensive purposes, we can look at all the evidence for why they won. They pitched better, hit better, had better defense, etc.. etc.. However, we can't say that the "Curse of the Bambino" was broken no matter how much we'd like to believe it. There's just not enough evidence for it. We can't go around asserting, scientifically, that baseball gods decided to throw the Red Sox a good luck charm. All we can do is look at the statistics, the evidence, and what naturally happened and make a presupposition that that is why they won those ball games. To assert that some baseball god did it is a little bit ludicrous and has no scientific validity."
Quote:
Originally Posted by HsvMike
One of the main problems that I do have in science that nothing is unexplained, someone always just makes a new group for it, comes up with a classification, or some reasoning for it. I think some try to be smarter than they really are. Take the medical field for example, you just can't have a bad ass kid (sorry) they have to be diagnosed with ADHD. People over think too much. Everything has to be classified. Regardless of how smart people are, there aren't answers for everything.
Although I am inclined to agree with you on some level, the only thing we have with science is what we know based on empirical testing. That is what we know, for all intensive purposes as to how we decipher fact from fiction. It is, and should be, 180 degrees away from religion but it always seems to be religion as those who want to bring it into that sector. I suggest you look into "The Wedge Strategy" if you want to see what I'm talking about.
Anyway, I hope I explained this in an orderly and somewhat cohesive explanation. I'd be more than happy to go further if you choose. I always find I learn something new whenever I do this.
I am always willing to learn. So what you are saying is that evolution is a cross between natural selection and selective breeding?
You don't have to take it easy on me, I have not studied up a lot about evolution and really only catch tidbits here and there, and I am a big boy, I can take it. That is why I do need Evolution 101.
So does evolution believe that everyone came from a single celled organism?
I will look into those things that you stated, I don't have time now, but I will.
Evolution has it's own threads....here's the OP again people...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
"People felt the need to feel comfort/justified so they invented a God to believe in."..."People believe what they want to believe."
Whenever I see statements like this, I'm always a little amazed that people believe these statements, which to me seem illogical (but I guess people believe what they want to believe! ).
The way I see it:
If I need to "create" something, this means that I know it hasn't existed. So then, I "create" it in my mind, and after that, I truly believe it exists??
Is it possible or logical for a rational person to invent something, with no evidence, in order to truly believe in it?
The origin of the music is in their brain in response to damaged hearing. No air molecules are moved and no one else can ever hear it. The music is not real. Same with any other thing in any one's head that doesn't exist in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by june 7th
And to think I've been pondering an analogy for months now...
But when the same music is heard by multiple people and they are all saying "Did you hear that?" and replying with "Yes, wasn't that beautiful?"
Then you can move from imaginary, non-existent music to the confirmed notion that indeed there was a 'bump in the night'.
. I recall once after a failed job interview I returned home and was heading up to my room feeling a little down when midway up the stairs I heard a voice say to me. "Tom, you did everything but pray about getting a job". For reasons which I can't explain I did not think about the fact that I just heard a voice that spoke to me out of thin air, but considered what it had said. Rather then go to my room, I went to my mothers bedroom and kneeled down by her bed and said this simple prayer. "Jesus you know of all the birds that fall from the sky, and you know the very number of hairs that are on my head, and you must know that I need a job. So Jesus if you are who you say you are you will get me a job. And whatever happens now will be because of you Jesus. Amen.
This begs the question...why would your god require you to pray to him before granting you a job?
Evolution is not a fact far from it. Even Darwin said if his Theory were true there would be and abundance of trans species found in the fossil record. That has not happened, and the best your guys can come up with is trying to make extinctd mammals in to swimimg whales. And doing this with out any evidence. Your evidence is but speculation. For years we were forced fed how we would never find soft tissue in Dinosaurs bones because the Evolutions told us that soft tissue would be long gone before 10,000 years passed. Yet now, they have discovered soft tissue in dinosars bones and these same Evolutions are telling us soft tissue can now last 70 million years. I swear, you people will believe anything as long as it supports your belief system. Where is the study on soft tissue, where is the science that confirms this finding, oh thats right, you don't need a study, you just need someone in a lab coat to spread his opinion and that's the study. The soft tissue confirms the Biblical account that Dinosaurs were on the earth not millions of years ago but thousands, the Bible also told us that dinosaurs skin was made up of scales, science did not know this until a recent discovery showed us are first dinosaur mummy, and again, it confirmed the Biblical account. And that was dinosaurs did have scales. The only fairy tales I see being confirmed come from your soto science. The Bible again is proveing to be right on the mark. And science once again is proveing itself to be the ones who ignore solid evidence.
Science isn't a belief system. Statements like that make your arguments lose credibility from the start. And the evolutionary process CAN be observed and is fact. How it happens is theory. Considering the fact that I am a science fan and treat it as a career, I am sure I know way more about the subject than you. The fossil record can be observed at the Museum in NYC. I guess that won't convince you though, despite the fact that observable evidence is 1000000 times better than scriptures written by random people 2,000 years ago. I'm done with this because arguing science with someone who doesn't have the same level of understanding of it as me is like arguing over which football team would score more than the other with someone who doesn't even know how the game is played.
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.
