What if I came up to you and assumed you worshiped Satan?

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Ghost147
Other scientists are adding in new evidence to justify the theory when in fact the original theory is now full of patches like a tire that is running down a railroad track with spikes sticking up.

Perhaps you're not aware, but all of science does this. It's not due to some embarrassing notion that was previously made, it's because new evidence is found, thus the old theory needs to be adjusted or completely rejected in light of this new evidence.

Science isn't a static, immovable object (unlike religion, of which we are not allowed to question). Science is just our means of attempting to explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. We do this by first seeing the evidence, forming a hypothesis as to what that evidence is doing, and then performing various experiments to try to prove that hypothesis false. If everything seems to point to that hypothesis being correct, then it may even be upgraded to a Scientific Theory due to it's accuracy. But nothing in science ever proclaims to be 100% accurate, because we don't know everything and we will never know everything.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Ghost147
This means that there is a possibility for misinterpretation by the students.

You are absolutely correct! What is taught now, in science, may not be what is taught in 10 or 20 years. Again, once more discovery's are made, we then will have more available information to make those original scientific concepts more accurate.

It is not taught that any scientific concept is absolutely true. It would be intellectually dishonest to claim so.

a reply to: Ghost147

What if I came up to you and assumed you worshiped Satan?

Many people do not realize they are already worshipping Satan.......

a reply to: Ghost147

If the teacher in school teaches the theory of evolution as written without teaching all the adaptation theories and evidence, which is done exactly that way, then how are people supposed to believe the original theory?

You wonder why so many people around the globe do not believe the theory of evolution. I do not believe the theory is complete enough, I believe things evolve but do not like the theory of evolution because it is not right.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Ghost147
If the teacher in school teaches the theory of evolution as written without teaching all the adaptation theories and evidence, which is done exactly that way, then how are people supposed to believe the original theory?

I'm not quite sure how it would be possible to teach the Theory of Evolution without teaching adaptation and evidence? Could you elaborate? I'm a bit confused about this point.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Ghost147
You wonder why so many people around the globe do not believe the theory of evolution.

It's not so mysterious. It is due to education on the theory itself. As I stated in the OP, the vast majority of people who oppose it are the same people who have striking misconceptions about it.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Ghost147
I do not believe the theory is complete enough, I believe things evolve but do not like the theory of evolution because it is not right.

I'm very interested in your reasoning behind this. Would you care to take the time to start a topic on the matter explaining your position?

a reply to: rickymouse

You do realize the "theory' of evolution is actually fact though right? It isn't pigs sprouting wings and flying though, that is the religious belief of evolution.

The scientific version is well proved, and always being refined per new data, unlike that book you read. Oh wait, people change that too. Well I'll be damned.

a reply to: Ghost147

I am a Christian, and a metalhead. So of course, I have been called a Satanist by the ill informed amongst Christendom.

However, I would argue that for me, evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. I happen to have absorbed evolution as a concept very well, and believe that creation and evolution are synonymous, are the very same function differently described. The discussion you want to have, therefore, is one in which I cannot participate, in the role you state that you would prefer.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: rickymouse

You do realize the "theory' of evolution is actually fact though right? It isn't pigs sprouting wings and flying though, that is the religious belief of evolution.

The scientific version is well proved, and always being refined per new data, unlike that book you read. Oh wait, people change that too. Well I'll be damned.

They wouldn't call it the theory of evolution if it was a fact. They do have things called facts and they call them facts. The theory of evolution contains some facts though.

a reply to: rickymouse

you clearly don't understand science so I will break it down for you.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a proven fact and known to happen. In science however, new studies, facts, details, or data may emerge that might slightly change proposed thoughts. This is called the theory part. The FACT of evolution is we have observed it. Whether it be through adaptation or genetic manipulation, we have 100% observed that one thing will change into another thing. That is evolution. That doesn't mean pigs sprout wings and man came from an oozing pool of cells. It simply means what I said. Evolution is fact.

The THEORY of evolution is what we have studied and observed, made a traceable timeline for it and looked into the history of it. The THEORY is NOT FACT, as it involves constantly changing variables, which are always sought to be proven or disproven. Best part? The THEORY accepts both sides, and allows real people with real data and real research to refine the THEORY.

Get it now?

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: ketsuko

Why do I care about how people debate a topic? perhaps because when someone comes in with misconceptions alone, there is no possibility to discuss the actual topic.

It's not about me being personally hurt. More-so just an observation of the vast percentage (as in, what seems to be 98%) of opposers of the Theory of Evolution having no rebuttal against the evidence other than misinformation.

You must not hang out much in the political arena then.

I'm a libertarian/conservative. As such, I'm a racist, homophobe, bigot, etc., just for disagreeing on a regular basis depending on where you go.

It goes with the territory. If you disagree with someone, they will more often than not substitute an ad hominem for actual debate.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Ghost147


Not one of the things you quoted was actually in the original theory of evolution. People are constantly saying darwins theory says these things but it does not. Other scientists are adding in new evidence to justify the theory when in fact the original theory is now full of patches like a tire that is running down a railroad track with spikes sticking up. Patch after patch will not make it right because the patches are not attached to the original theory in teachings. This means that there is a possibility for misinterpretation by the students.

It's got to be reworked. It is being seriously misapplied.

Do you know how science works? Why is what was in the original theory of evolution necessary for what is considered today? Scientists discard the things that are unsound and adopt new things all the time. What the theory of evolution originally said is irrelevant to today's discussion of its validity.

This is exactly what the OP was talking about. Your misinformation and willful ignorance are preventing a meaningful discussion from happening until you can get rid of your preconceived notions and actually LISTEN to what the other people are saying about how evolution works instead of just going by how you THINK it works.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: rickymouse

You do realize the "theory' of evolution is actually fact though right? It isn't pigs sprouting wings and flying though, that is the religious belief of evolution.

The scientific version is well proved, and always being refined per new data, unlike that book you read. Oh wait, people change that too. Well I'll be damned.

They wouldn't call it the theory of evolution if it was a fact. They do have things called facts and they call them facts. The theory of evolution contains some facts though.

What are some of these "facts"? Care to list a few?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: rickymouse

you clearly don't understand science so I will break it down for you.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a proven fact and known to happen. In science however, new studies, facts, details, or data may emerge that might slightly change proposed thoughts. This is called the theory part. The FACT of evolution is we have observed it. Whether it be through adaptation or genetic manipulation, we have 100% observed that one thing will change into another thing. That is evolution. That doesn't mean pigs sprout wings and man came from an oozing pool of cells. It simply means what I said. Evolution is fact.

The THEORY of evolution is what we have studied and observed, made a traceable timeline for it and looked into the history of it. The THEORY is NOT FACT, as it involves constantly changing variables, which are always sought to be proven or disproven. Best part? The THEORY accepts both sides, and allows real people with real data and real research to refine the THEORY.

Get it now?

Evolution is fact, things evolve. The theory of evolution is a theory. I do not question evolution, I question the theory of evolution as written. We have a really lot more to discover on this subject to write a proper theory on it.

I am using proper science technique to make my opinion, not just belief in something someone wrote. To accept the theory as a fact without every aspect of things not listed being addressed makes it severely flawed. It does not apply sometimes to things. Evolution is being altered all the time based on the environment and diet and the pattern is not just random, there is way more to it. There is so much information stored in our autosomal DNA that was not even considered or accepted as relevant when the theory was created that it is highly flawed.

I never said I did not believe in evolution, I dispute the validity of the theory.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: rickymouse

You do realize the "theory' of evolution is actually fact though right? It isn't pigs sprouting wings and flying though, that is the religious belief of evolution.

The scientific version is well proved, and always being refined per new data, unlike that book you read. Oh wait, people change that too. Well I'll be damned.

They wouldn't call it the theory of evolution if it was a fact. They do have things called facts and they call them facts. The theory of evolution contains some facts though.

What are some of these "facts"? Care to list a few?

A fact is that everything can evolve based on necessity and also on things in the environment. That does not mean that all aspects of the theory of evolution are correct. Just because the theory of evolution has some truth to it does not mean that everything it contains is correct. It was cut with occams razor to fit into consensus of the time just as most theories were. Otherwise it might not get accepted.

It is true that there are hundreds of changes to this theory over the year, but these should be amendments attached to the theory. It is hard enough to get kids in school to read the original theory let alone to understand the thousands of pages of addons. My pet peave is they should rewrite and simplify this and adapt it as new things are discovered and allow for consciousness of the animals to be considered. The deer population took a tumble the last two years because of bad winters and many hunters I know are not going hunting till the populations recover. Is this covered by the theory of evolution? Animals in the wild will do the same thing.

originally posted by: rickymouse
A fact is that everything can evolve based on necessity and also on things in the environment. That does not mean that all aspects of the theory of evolution are correct. Just because the theory of evolution has some truth to it does not mean that everything it contains is correct. It was cut with occams razor to fit into consensus of the time just as most theories were. Otherwise it might not get accepted.

No one said that everything in it is correct. If everything were correct in the theory then there would be no more need to add additional information or change the theory when new evidence appears. Obviously, not everything is correct in it. That doesn't mean that the theory is wrong though or that large portions of it are wrong.

It is true that there are hundreds of changes to this theory over the year, but these should be amendments attached to the theory. It is hard enough to get kids in school to read the original theory let alone to understand the thousands of pages of addons. My pet peave is they should rewrite and simplify this and adapt it as new things are discovered and allow for consciousness of the animals to be considered. The deer population took a tumble the last two years because of bad winters and many hunters I know are not going hunting till the populations recover. Is this covered by the theory of evolution? Animals in the wild will do the same thing.

Simplify? Science isn't simple or made for the simple minded, because the universe isn't simple. Simplifying the theory just creates misunderstandings. You either understand the terminology or you don't understand science. Everything must be exact and accounted for. Your pet peeve is a pet peeve with science in general. The kids don't HAVE to read the original theory, because the original theory is irrelevant outside of a history of science class. All that matters is what is currently believed.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: rickymouse

You do realize the "theory' of evolution is actually fact though right? It isn't pigs sprouting wings and flying though, that is the religious belief of evolution.

The scientific version is well proved, and always being refined per new data, unlike that book you read. Oh wait, people change that too. Well I'll be damned.

They wouldn't call it the theory of evolution if it was a fact. They do have things called facts and they call them facts. The theory of evolution contains some facts though.

What are some of these "facts"? Care to list a few?

A fact is that everything can evolve based on necessity and also on things in the environment.

I'd have to agree with you on this. Vector, although in the right frame of mind, was a bit too forward by "stating the Theory of Evolution is a fact." No scientific hypothesis can be 100% absolute fact, as there can always be something out there that disproves our original concept of the functionality of a natural phenomenon. The Phenomenon, is definitely a fact. Our description is just our best interpretation.

originally posted by: rickymouse
That does not mean that all aspects of the theory of evolution are correct. Just because the theory of evolution has some truth to it does not mean that everything it contains is correct. It was cut with occams razor to fit into consensus of the time just as most theories were. Otherwise it might not get accepted.

This is where your misconceptions come in. No scientific hypothesis is made to fit some preconceived notion. When evidence is discovered, that evidence effects our current representing model of a description, but our description isn't changed because we need to have it the way it originally was intended, just with different wording.

If there were parts of the Theory of Evolution that did imply this intellectual dishonesty, it would be very easy to prove the newly conceived notion as a false one, simply because the evidence does not back up the claim.

originally posted by: rickymouse
It is true that there are hundreds of changes to this theory over the year, but these should be amendments attached to the theory. It is hard enough to get kids in school to read the original theory let alone to understand the thousands of pages of addons.

It isn't a requirement in a standard science class to know every aspect of anything, that's why we have specific university-level courses that focus on single fields and topics. kindergarten to grade 12 is only meant to get the children onto the basics. The university levels DO talk about those modern discoveries with great detail.

originally posted by: rickymouse
My pet peave is they should rewrite and simplify this and adapt it as new things are discovered and allow for consciousness of the animals to be considered.

Scientists do do this, so I'm not quite sure what you're having an issue with.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The deer population took a tumble the last two years because of bad winters and many hunters I know are not going hunting till the populations recover. Is this covered by the theory of evolution? Animals in the wild will do the same thing.

Yes, it's called natural selection. If predation and weather effect a population (again not just in a matter of two years, but thousands if not more years) then beneficial mutations would be selected in order for the species to survive (if not then it would simply go extinct, at least in that area).

Again, you're viewing things at a very small time frame, or incorrectly all together.

a reply to: rickymouse

You literally almost parroted my post, but with different words. I explained why it is a THEORY, and why that theory can change. Good on you for disputing the theory, several scholars do as well. The difference is they come up with evidence WHY the THEORY is wrong. Not just fingers in ears saying NANANANANA

a reply to: Ghost147

Really, one can not exist without the other. Everything is created and everything evolves. There is no debate. The debate comes into play when we try to explain how either work.

Just pick anything you want to dissect. You will see evidence.

This is the old what came first problem, the chicken or the egg. Never ever will we ever understand or be able to prove this as a fact one way or the other.

Evolution of words. Evolution of technology. Evolution of science. Evolution of any species.

What do they all have in common? Creation.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: rickymouse

You literally almost parroted my post, but with different words. I explained why it is a THEORY, and why that theory can change. Good on you for disputing the theory, several scholars do as well. The difference is they come up with evidence WHY the THEORY is wrong. Not just fingers in ears saying NANANANANA

I'm not bothering to prove it wrong, just stating I do not have to believe something that I see flaws with. Yes, we are on the same page on some things. I rarely take sides on things, believing people have the right to believe what they want as long as they do not force their beliefs on others. I know things evolve and I know it does progress but there are things the theory and many accompanying information do not address. That is consciousness and also group mindset. Most things I am disputing deals with the psychological aspect of animals. A farmer calling a cow a dumb animal is not correct, neither is a scientist just saying it is just a cow that has little or no ability to think and make decisions. A person who has a cow and milks it knows the cow can be a friend and can actually think and has feelings which if hurt effects it's milk production.

The theory of evolution and a lot of the supporting research does not address this much because we think we are the only ones who have this consciousness and it has only come recently. Consensus of the time is clouding the research. Just because millions of people believe in something does not mean it is right. To me the belief in this theory when taught almost as fact when it is not complete can cause just as much problems as Genesis.

Interaction with energy signitures or frequency with our DNA creates change or evolution. Certain foods or environmental factors cause a change in this energy pattern. Certain endocrine disruptors or food chemistry can change the way we look and force change in the body. Changing the energy signature changes how we look and act. All food is psychotropic which can cause physical changes. I understand how food works and a lot on how changing our bodies energy levels work. Knowing more about this makes me more against this theory because it does not address enough aspects of possible variances in the evolution. I think it is severely flawed. Eat a cinnamon roll with a person over coffee and it forces the body to create a bond between you and the person because of chemistry created which makes good memories. This can influence how you interact with this person in the future. Animals are no different usually.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I believe God uses evolution in the process of creation. Therefore, both creationism and evolution are correct. Everyone wins.

Not the poor little dinosaurs.

a reply to: Ghost147

I'd assume you were insensitive, high or both.

Assuming you know anything about me, having never met me, would indicate some form of wtf....lol