The Truth About Evolution: Somebody's Making A Monkey Out of You

Gato_Solo said:
Yet, you believe them today...Thus, blind faith. ;)
Click to expand...

As of today no one has presented me something more plausible to accept. I don't believe them, I accept them as correct in dealing with my day to day existence. Interpret it the way you will, I have "blind faith" in nothing (not even existence although I believe it would be stupid to act as if I don't exist). I can explain it until I'm blue in the face and you will still believe that everyone has "blind faith" in something or other. I can tell you that this is simply not true. You can believe it or not, It makes no difference to me.

I do however, provisionally accept that the rest of the lawn needs mowing, so I'll be back later. :lol:
 
chcr said:
As of today no one has presented me something more plausible to accept. I don't believe them, I accept them as correct in dealing with my day to day existence. Interpret it the way you will, I have "blind faith" in nothing (not even existence although I believe it would be stupid to act as if I don't exist). I can explain it until I'm blue in the face and you will still believe that everyone has "blind faith" in something or other. I can tell you that this is simply not true. You can believe it or not, It makes no difference to me.

I do however, provisionally accept that the rest of the lawn needs mowing, so I'll be back later. :lol:
Click to expand...

How do you know that I exist? You've never met me. You've never seen me. :D
 
Gato_Solo said:
How do you know that I exist? You've never met me. You've never seen me. :D
Click to expand...
I don't know that you exist. I can't prove it in any meaningful way. I accept that you do for purposes of conversation, etc. but that you exist, how the heck do I know. All I ever see is words on what I accept is a computer screen. :shrug:


Science too is a belief ;)
Click to expand...

No freak, science is merely a set of tools for dealing with and explaining the observable universe. Many people "believe" in the "results" of scientific investigation, but most people who really understand it also understand that any conclusion drawn is subject to change with no notice at all. Here's a for instance: Ask yourself IF gravity works. Now ask yourself HOW? It's okay, no one else really knows how either. Solving how will be an important step toward a Unified Field Theory (if that's possible). We accept that bodies with mass have gravity proportionate to said mass and that the gravity decreases as an inversre square of the distance from the mass. Until we understand HOW (particle, wave, force that leaks from another universe), we can't say with certainty that it won't stop ten minutes from now. All we can say with certainty is that it hasn't stopped yet.

Am I afraid it will stop? Nah, it never has and if it does what would I do about it? :D
 
Chic: Science is a way of explaining things and people believe the facts. Science is a belief. In facts. The reason I think it is more founded than religion is because it has more backing. Plus it has the Scientific Method to get results which means you have attempted to answer a question using means rather than faith.
 
No Eric, science is a set of tools/methodologies. Where the "belief" part comes into play would be in relation to hypotheses and theories.
 
No Anna. As I stated it is a belief in fact. Hypothesis and Theories are also a part of the beliefs.
 
freako104 said:
No Anna. As I stated it is a belief in fact. Hypothesis and Theories are also a part of the beliefs.
Click to expand...
Sorry Eric, but your statement simply shows me that you don't understand science. The "facts" you refer to are not science. They are conclusions made by the use of scientific methodologies. Many (if not most) people reach the same conclusion, that does not make it a correct one.

"If the sun shines, it will be warm." This is a statement made using the "cause and effect" methodology. This is correct often enough that most people "believe" it is a fact. It is not science, it is a conclusion reached by using a scientific method. It is also not a fact. The sun can shine and it still be cold, can't it? Cause and effect is not a fact either. It is simply a tool which describes the world around us (and not always correctly). But it is science albeit in it's simplest form.

Yes, people believe in facts. Facts are not science, facts are conclusions. Most people even believe facts are immutable. They are sadly mistaken, as history has shown over and over.
 
Yes, people believe in facts
Click to expand...


and this is different from what I said? read my posts. I said people believe in facts. Thus science is a belief system. If people didnt believe in facts it wouldnt be a belief system.
 
freako104 said:
and this is different from what I said? read my posts. I said people believe in facts. Thus science is a belief system. If people didnt believe in facts it wouldnt be a belief system.
Click to expand...

Yes, people belive in facts, no science is not a "belief" system. Science is simply a way of drawing conclusions (a methodology, if you will) that you can accept or reject, not a belief system in and of itself. :shrug: I will however grant you that there are those who believe as you do, I just don't agree.

Note: IMO, blind belief in the conclusions of science is no different than blind belief in one deity or another though (and no less in error). You're confusing the conclusions with the methodology. I understand that a lot of people refer to the conclusions as science, but conclusions are simply conclusions.

PS: Eric, I always read posts I respond to. ;)
 
In this case, the mammal was about the size of a large opossum (search), and the victim was a 5-inch "parrot dinosaur."
Click to expand...

Once again, it is clear that evolution occured from the fossil record. How and when it occured (and over what time period) is subject to discussion, debate, whatever. This happened 130 million years ago, not 6 thousand. It in no way contradicts the fact of evolution, although it does make some consider the "conventional theory" of how it occured. Larger mammals have always been theorized (in fact, it was only in the last half of the last century that the theory that all mammals during the cretaceous era were small and timid became popular), the larger scientific community found it unlikely until this discovery. This in no way changes or disproves the fact that evolution occured.
 
chcr said:
Once again, it is clear that evolution occured from the fossil record. How and when it occured (and over what time period) is subject to discussion, debate, whatever. This happened 130 million years ago, not 6 thousand. It in no way contradicts the fact of evolution, although it does make some consider the "conventional theory" of how it occured. Larger mammals have always been theorized (in fact, it was only in the last half of the last century that the theory that all mammals during the cretaceous era were small and timid became popular), the larger scientific community found it unlikely until this discovery. This in no way changes or disproves the fact that evolution occured.
Click to expand...

Yes...I know your beliefs quite clearly. ;) You would like to think that religious folks believe the world is only 6,000 years old. You get this 'fact' from studying the bible, and concluding that there were only enough generations for 6,000 years. Bravo. Of course, you realize, that this whole line of thinking is wrong, but just keep repeating it. Maybe you can convince others to believe what you think you've deduced. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
Yes...I know your beliefs quite clearly. ;) You would like to think that religious folks believe the world is only 6,000 years old. You get this 'fact' from studying the bible, and concluding that there were only enough generations for 6,000 years. Bravo. Of course, you realize, that this whole line of thinking is wrong, but just keep repeating it. Maybe you can convince others to believe what you think you've deduced. ;)
Click to expand...

I couldn't really be less interested in getting someone else to believe. Some things are patently obvious, and being deliberately obtuse by jumping on anything that you perceive as questioning evolution is, well, obtuse. :shrug: The article you posted has no bearing whatsoever on evolution, it simply questions the largely accepted timeline (although it is worded in a sensationalized manner).
The simple fact is, evolution occurred. No doubt obtains. You can accept it or reject it as pleases you, that will not in any way alter the fact. It is not something I have "deduced," it simply is. As for the six thousand year thing, it's pretty self-evident too. If you accept biblical creation, yet you reject the clear timeline, then you are, IMO, picking and choosing what to believe. Typically religious in my experience. Note once again that I do not intend that as an attack on religious people (some of my best friends...;) ), simply pointing out that at least among the religious people I have direct experience with, their beliefs are generally selective (although most will vehemently deny such an opinion, and unlike evolution that is an opinion).
 
chcr said:
As for the six thousand year thing, it's pretty self-evident too. If you accept biblical creation, yet you reject the clear timeline, then you are, IMO, picking and choosing what to believe. Typically religious in my experience. Note once again that I do not intend that as an attack on religious people (some of my best friends...;) ), simply pointing out that at least among the religious people I have direct experience with, their beliefs are generally selective (although most will vehemently deny such an opinion, and unlike evolution that is an opinion).
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's where you are wrong. There was never a stated timeline for creation outside of the six days it took to create the universe, as it were. You are picking and choosing what you wish to convey. Typically liberal. If you don't know something, why, just make it up, and claim it's the religious guy rejecting a clear time-line. :p
 
So then you think the intervening years between creation and Abraham are misrepresented in the bible?

Due to it being prized as the coveted word of God, the Bible has been better preserved, and translated into more languages than any other book in history. Original manuscripts can be found in the oldest written languages on earth, and it also contains the longest running genealogical sequence known to exist, spanning approximately 4000 years. There is simply no other book in existence that offers a better chronological record of the early history of earth.
Click to expand...
link

I've read it numerous times and I always get the same conclusions. Approximately 4000 years from Adam to Jesus and approximately two thousand since. Do you think then that the geneology is incorrect? That they (or he if you prefer) left out several thousand generations? Please, the timeline and geneology of the old testament is carefully and reasonably completely recorded. Not that I'm in any way trying to influence what you believe, just giving you my point of view. A lot of people want it both ways. You are far from alone. I just don't buy it. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top