It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Caz, your so cute wrapped up in your fervor, but be carefull your dogma may get run over by my Karma. At any rate Im glad you view evolution as a scientific theory as we can define here:



A scientific Theory means something very different from “theory” in the lay sense, and constitutes the best explanation of natural phenomena based on a preponderance of evidence. It incorporates facts, laws, strong inferences, and tested hypotheses. Theories are different than hypotheses in that they have been confirmed by many independent observations from different investigators. In science, a theory is a unifying concept, and has great explanatory power. Although hypotheses are quite often disproved, it is extremely rare for theories to be overturned or discarded.

georgiascience.org...




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia

Look at what the sticker says,


"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Now tell us, is this a true or false statement?

False.

Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is that it occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection. Evolution is also not a theory that has anything to do with the origin of living things. Furthermore, stateing that evolution should be critically considered but not other theories is bogus, and clearly the sticker only exists because of religious opposition to it.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
This isnt about weather or not church and state are being mingled
its about speaking the truth.

Look at what the sticker says,


"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Now tell us, is this a true or false statement?

If you can try to explain how this is a false statement.
however,
if this statement, reguardless of who said it or why, is true,
then,
What is the problem with who is speaking this truth or why they say it?

It's the same as if I went to a Sunday school and put stickers in the bible that say, "God is a null hypothesis. There is no proof that god exists. It's quite possible that the bible is nothing but a fictional story."

I'm sure that would go over well, eh? It's true, isn't it? In fact, it's so true that any attempt to advertise this would be considered an attack on christians. The fact that they attempted to advertise their opinion on evolution, is what makes the intent very clear. It scares me to think of what their science teachers are telling them in class.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is that it occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection. Evolution is also not a theory that has anything to do with the origin of living things. Furthermore, stateing that evolution should be critically considered but not other theories is bogus, and clearly the sticker only exists because of religious opposition to it.

Exactly!


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   


The FACT is, despite scientific THEORY, millions of people believe, for whatever and varied reasons(different gods), that some form of creationism is the origin of life.


There is a difference between belief and fact.

Would it be right to amend the sticker in such a way as to read.........

although Darwinism is the theory of evolution, based on scientific study, other people believe in god creating everything on earth and they believe this because someone said so in a book written 2000 years ago by a friend of a friend of a friend of the author/authors, even though there is no evidence to show this because god moves in mysterious ways.

Would that be right? I've believe in Santa Claus does that make him real?

if it was left to some people it would be like the middle ages all over again the church held the power and supressed all.....they'll be burning people at the stake soon because they believe in evolution............



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacemunkey
although Darwinism is the theory of evolution, based on scientific study, other people believe in god creating everything on earth and they believe this because someone said so in a book written 2000 years ago by a friend of a friend of a friend of the author/authors, even though there is no evidence to show this because god moves in mysterious ways.


I like it
Perhaps we can also have Santa Clause and Easter Bunny warning lables as well? Ooh ooh can we get a Christian Science tag for medical books? "Even thought this book will teach you how to repair the human body it is just a theory, an alternative exists for curing medical problems" Mmmmmm that the doctor I want taking care of my child.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
That's funny!


"Take 2 pills every 8 hours, or just pray to Jesus for permanent relief."

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
evolution is very real, even in religious text of all cultures there is something about evolution, although the word isn't used.. It doesn't mean genetic mutation or that we magically transform or turn into a new species of human, it's a sort of awareness and we have reached evolution in the sense that we've gone from steam engine paradigm, to computer paradigm, which brought you the internet and the information science paradigm which can be applied to quantum computing... Now believing only in Science and having no spiritual faith is never going to take you anywhere, those who like to stay on one side of the fence need to get rid of those fences and balance themselves out, then neither scientists nor religious fundamentalists would be considered weirdos. Logic and Reasoning needs balance, it's not one or the other? get it?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
FredT,
Dont answer my questions, its ok, ignoring them doesnt make them go away!

Why wont you say weather or not the sticker states truth or not?
Is it because you cant change truth from truth despite your desire to condem the messenger for speaking it?

How can you support a legal ruling using basically a double assumption in order to uphold the position?

How can you support your own assumptions about what the sticker says or your assumptions about motive? Pretty assumptive for a MOD if you ask me. Also telling as to your political/religious ideologies as much as the judges assumptions.
See i can assume stuff from what is actually typed in front of me as well, which is why this is a bad, assumptive ruling.

Are you or are you in favor of information censorship? Yes or no.
Should the mere mention that other ideas as to the origins of life exist, be withheld in an educational environment?

Lets look at your own link used to back this idea,

from its mission statement on the home page,


Protecting the integrity of science education will contribute directly to the future of our students, our quality of life, and to the prosperity of the state of Georgia.
How can they possibly, logically, think they are protecting science by OMITTING information about other theories concerning the origins of life?
Isnt ommision a lie?

If you lined up ALL "life origin" ideas side by side, and applied the scientific method to them to compare/contrast them, youd probably come to the conclusion that evolution was the most likley ideology out of the bunch anyway. So why LIE to the students by witholding other idealogies for scrutiny using their own vaunted methods? This seems like a logical self delusional fallicy here.

The article "what is science" from which you cut and paste distinguishes Hypothesis from Theory.

This article goes on to say


Often non-scientific theories rely on supernatural or paranormal phenomena or belief in things that cannot be tested. Even though certain non-scientific beliefs may be widely held, they do not conform to the criteria for valid science.
Why cant these things be hypothesis?
Also,
Id have to say cannot be tested YET on this one as by their own statements,


Scientific explanations are not absolute, but can change (and have changed) in the face of new observations and measurements. This means that science is a self-correcting enterprise.
Just because mankind hasnt YET found a way to quantify, measure, or otherwise explain something (in this case god and/or creationism) doesnt mean they cant or wont. As they say science can and does come up with new ways to do so all the time,
SO
why then would they discount ideas widely held just because they cant currently be quantified? Again a self deluding idea, one that CLOSES the door of thinking, not opens it.

Example, the theory of the atom.
Man thought about smaller and samller building blocks of things for hundreds of years before they determined a way to quantify/measure them, let alone "see" atoms as science is only recently able to do or even build things on an atomic level like weve seen today. (spelling ibm with atoms on a microchip or nano-tech)

It is the height of stupidity to think that man cant/wont come up with new ways to understand/quantify/manipulate the "unknown" based on our progress of blowing thru seemingly impossible barriers so far.

But oh yeah assume what you want.

Assumption isnt the basis of science, or is it?
How else can man think outside the box about things that cant be currently quantified, yet somehow we do?

Open your mind, dont close it.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
FredT,
Dont answer my questions, its ok, ignoring them doesnt make them go away!

Why wont you say weather or not the sticker states truth or not?
Is it because you cant change truth from truth despite your desire to condem the messenger for speaking it?


Let me ask you this, Caz. What do you think when you see something like this?

"Abortion is killing a child."

It's true, right? But it also tells alot about the person displaying that message, does it not? You know immediately where they stand on the issue. Not only is it the truth, but it's also a statement against those who are pro-choice. See what I mean? Would it be ok to put that in a text book too, since it's true?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Nygdan starts the ignorance with,


Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is .........
Is it fact or theory, pick one please.....Did you look up the difference between fact and theory? While theories incorporate some facts, they also incorporate assumptions, which is why theory isnt called fact, its called theory.
try again.


Damned is always good for some misrepresentation, such as this,


It's the same as if I went to a Sunday school and put stickers in the bible that say, "God is a null hypothesis. There is no proof that god exists. It's quite possible that the bible is nothing but a fictional story."
Umm no, your comparing a school based upon teaching ONE ideology, with a supposedly open educational system. (private vs public schools)
"there is no proof that god exists" you say, again i say yet and point to numurous scientific facts that we have now that were not able to be cleary thought about, quantified, let alone manipulated like we do now.
But oh yeah man cant do something (how many barriers have we crushed thru time already, how many more are we capable of? its ok, close your mind to the unknown possibillities) while it is quite possible that god doesnt exist, will you acknowlege that he COULD? or is your mind too small to grasp that idea?

FredT lightens the mood of the narrow minded with this doosie,


can we get a Christian Science tag for medical books? "Even thought this book will teach you how to repair the human body it is just a theory, an alternative exists for curing medical problems"
I guess your unaware that ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE is being studied by legitimate practicing doctors now eh? You must have never heard about the scientific studies that examine the effects of prayer and health/healing eh?
here is a MEDICAL DICTIONARY definition for you,


Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation —the·o·ret·i·cal /"thE-&-'ret-i-k&l, "thi(&)r-'et-/ also the·o·ret·ic /-ik/ adjective —the·o·ret·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Gosh, note the terms used in there like "abstract principles", "plausible" (yet not proven), and the big one " working hypothesis"...ohh noo not hypothesis...thats not even THEORY by your cited articles definitions...again not proof positive. But go on and push your false assumptive premise anyway.

Spacemunky contributes to the delinquency here,

although Darwinism is the theory of evolution
NO, Darwinism is a theory based off of evolution, not evolutionary theory itself. The historical development of a related group of organisms thru time is actually called phylogeny....I know big scientific words hurt our heads, but subtle differences make all the difference in scientific studies sometimes.

Boombye, well you actually call for BALANCE between science and spirituallity...OMG finnally someone with an OPEN MIND!!!

PS people,
It seems that the lack of scientific understanding expoused on this thread lends me to the hypothesis that bashing christians, putting them in their place thru segragation in society, and censorship of information is the REAL reason this thread even exists.


We humans think we're sooo smart with our closed little minds.
expand your consciousness people, awaken from the dark limited world youve been conditioned to believe is reality.
deny your own ignorance.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
while it is quite possible that god doesnt exist, will you acknowlege that he COULD? or is your mind too small to grasp that idea?

I am agnostic, so yes, I do acknowledge that it's possible. Yet, it's highly unlikely, IMO. People just weren't very intelligent back when they came up with all that BS. I shouldn't say "intelligent, I guess....let's say less advanced, and definitely naive. Their lives were ruled by superstition. So much so, that it caused them to make horrible decisions. This we know as fact. Judging by the idiotic decisions made, based on religious superstition, I have a pretty accurate perspective of those who believed in such things at the time.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Damned questions


Let me ask you this, Caz. What do you think when you see something like this?
"Abortion is killing a child."
It's true, right? But it also tells alot about the person displaying that message, does it not? You know immediately where they stand on the issue. Not only is it the truth, but it's also a statement against those who are pro-choice. See what I mean? Would it be ok to put that in a text book too, since it's true?


Not to change the subject but see where your basing this upon my assertion of "stating the truth".

Certantly this is a true statement.
However,
You assume what this says about the speaker based upon your own conditioning as to what to think about this issue.

What if this was stated by a scientist describing the medical proceedure to a class? why do you assume judgmentality in this statement of truth? Because youve been conditioned socially one way or the other on the issue of abortion, yet by its definition, its stated as a true statement.

It is ending the lifeform, its up to you to determine if you feel this act is right or wrong, the statement doesnt imply right/wrong one way or the other...youve assumed it, see my point about the sticker now? Where did you assume it was a statement that was anti choice? because someone anti choice has been heard to say this true statement? even if an anti choice person said this, does that make it less true?

How can the judge make such an assumption about the stickers statement? He did because of his own bias, as i stated long ago...his "impartial judgment" was clouded by this bias, making the decision improper.
this is seemingly a no brainer, yet BIAS clouds your mind into assuming something which is not really stated in what you just read. (not just you, we are all susecptable to this "blinders effect".



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Damned says about the existance of god,


I do acknowledge that it's possible. Yet, it's highly unlikely

OK lets work with that

How long did man say the world was flat?
the world was proved round...

How many centuries did man say, "man will never fly"?
Man flies to the moon.....

Does it really matter how/why they made these assumptive beliefs?
they were wrong...
they could have been right too

blood used to be magical, and spilling it would let your spirit die
now we know why this works...we still die if we bleed to death, only our understanding of its workings has changed, not the fact that blood is vital to life.

now we say, god doesnt exist because we cant prove it....
when you die, you'll get your answer pretty quickly ill bet.

just because we say now it cant happen, doesnt mean it wont, (or that it will either)

Yes we were "less advanced" and certantly more closed minded in most ways, yet in many we continued to use our imaginations to circumvent old ways of thinking...and suddenly man flies!!!

PS old ways of thinking arent always bad either...often newer is not better as we've seen in our days.

Dont let cold science kill your ability to dream, to think beyond the box,
this limits thinking, much like HIDING OTHER IDEAS on the origin of life from students does....meaning only teaching ONE idea, like evolution, even if it seems most legit, and others less so.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by CazMedia]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
So, what would be the point of making such a statement? It's so obvious, that there's really no need to put it on a sticker, right? The mere act of stating something so obvious is a political or religious statement in itself. Is it not? What reason would I have to state anything so obvious?
Let's say I have a t-shirt that has the letters F, U, C, K. These are only letters. It's only your social programming that might make these seem offensive to you. Yet, they're only letters of the alphabet. No statement is even being made, right?



Yes we were "less advanced" and certantly more closed minded in most ways, yet in many we continued to use our imaginations to circumvent old ways of thinking...and suddenly man flies!!!

There's a big difference between stating that "man will never fly," and "god created everything in the entire universe, including humans, with a snap of his magical fingers."
I can't help but wonder when people will finally see that god is just another imaginary friend. If you've noticed, throughout history, the most ridiculous fables were believed by the majority. Do you know why? I'll tell you. It's simply because they were believed by the majority.
I do tend to believe that some event must've happened to start the widespread misinterpretation in the first place. Possibly a visit from extraterrestrials, or something? Something must've prompted people to come up with this hokey explanation for whatever it is they saw. Or maybe they were all just that gullible?

Regardless, abortion or evolution statements are not publicly acceptable statements. If it wouldn't be appropriate on the side of a public bus, or in a bank, or anywhere that people of different opinions might see it, it surely isn't appropriate for public schools. Notice that there are no television commercials making statements about abortion or evolution. These are topics that stir up controversy, and tend to anger certain people. For that reason, they're kept out of unavoidable public places.

I see your point, but everyone knows what they were implying.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Cazmedia

why have you resulted to insults?

read this link and note the first couple of paragraphs.


www.talkorigins.org...




How long did man say the world was flat?


Man said the world was flat until the church said it was ok to say that it was round without being burned at the stake.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by spacemunkey]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
There are still religious cults that think the world is flat.
Check this out...

www.talkorigins.org...
www.alaska.net...

My god. Are these people serious? I mean, you can even seen the curvature of the horizon on the ocean and other places where the entire horizon is visible. They even think the earth does not move, based on experiments done in 1887!

Religious people are mostly annoying, but can also be good for humor, at times.



For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"
Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned

That's because it takes millions of years.


Evolution suggests only that it take a number of generations not years. This number of generations is being approached in short period life forms such as insects and mice, yet there is no evidence of the species line being crossed.

We'll never be able to witness it.
We should, through specifice repetition of influences and multiple breedings be able to reproduce some kind of increased complexity in the gene pool. Here I should note that the article you mentioned concerning voles only indicates an increased diversity of the gene pool not complexity of the genome itself. These two are very different concepts. Diversity simply suggests many variations of a kind. Complexity however, suggests an increase in the system design.


If you don't believe in the big invisible friend in the sky (which is merely a null hypothesis), there is no other scientific theory to explain this.


Any science that excludes from the start the possiblilty of intellegent influence upon the subject matter is doomed to error. If such a principle of assuming that all things happen by "natural processes" was to be applied to archeology then the pyramids would be seen as a random conjunction of rocks cut over time. Did the geo prism evolve from the volkswagen beetle? No but it was designed based upon many of the same goals using many of the same principles and materials. Hence there is a resemblence between the two of them. It is sad when trite sylables try to discredit reasonable people who recognize that the complexity and diversity we see around us is much more suggestive of intelligence than of purely random occasion.


There is proof of actual changes in DNA, due to climate/condition changes.

This article only states that when populations are limited by climate that their diversity is also limited. And when populations flourish their diversity is enhanced. Diversity is only a measure of the variation within a species. It is a reshuffling of existing material. It is like shuffling decks of cards together. If you have a small number of card sequences you get only a small number of possible permutations. If however you have a large number of card sequences you have a much larger number of possible permutations for each shuffling. The point being that you have the same cards in either case. The only difference is in the way they are mixed together. This does not constitute a change that is indicative of evolution since there is no addition to the genetic deck of cards.


Whale fossils also show evidence.

This study like so many other studies of evolution begins with the assumption that evolution is true and then interprets the data according to an evolutionary pattern. Unfortunately this quickly becomes a circular pattern of logic. Evolution is true because the fossil record shows species evolving. THe fossil record shows species evolving because it is interpretted according to evolution. The species noted in the article above are unrelated to each other if not interpreted through the lense of evolutionary thinking. This does not discount evolution but neither does it provide wonderful evidence for it since its mechanisms cannot be defined.

The only mechanism defined for evolution today is random mutation/ natural selection. Yet there is not a single example in all of modern science where a random mutation has created a new and more complex species. This is true even though great effort has been made to speed up and even enhance mutations through unnatural circumstance and influence. Until such a mechanism is found, to discount the possibility of intelligence upon the development of species is foolish since by their very complexity the species of our planet trumpet their designers handiwork.


There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution.

These so called transitional fossils are only transitional when interpreted through evolution. Otherwise they are simply fossils of various related species and subspecies of species. For example I can show how a IBM 286 evolved from its simple form through random mutations over millions of seconds to become a modern computer that dwarfs its primative ancestor in capabilities. I can point to the 386, the 486, the pentiums as transitional phases. I can also point to the now extict Apple II and IIe. I can show how small changes take place in a memory chip as it ages and how they even have mutations in their processing as time and radiation have their effects upon them. I could hypothesise that over many millions of years these computers could be formed by a series of these random mutations into factories that create new computers and add to the design complexity of the industry. I can do all these things if I assume that there is no engineer behind the complexity of the computer but I WOULD BE WRONG. I would also be seen as a fool since it is obvious to most that the complexity of a computer could not happen by simply stirring silicon and trace element together. No matter how long you stirred you would never even come out with a Commadore 64 much less a pentium 4. Yet life as we know it is millions of times more complex than the best we have created. How foolish is it then to assume that this complexity is the result of random mutations?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
Evolution suggests only that it take a number of generations not years.

Since when? Where do you find that? That's news to me. Show me the christian site you found that on.


Any science that excludes from the start the possiblilty of intellegent influence upon the subject matter is doomed to error.

Sure, the earth could have been seeded by aliens, or they may be doing genetic experiments. That's a far cry from "god," which is what I was referring to.


These so called transitional fossils are only transitional when interpreted through evolution. Otherwise they are simply fossils of various related species and subspecies of species.

How else can you interpret them? How should they be interpreted, in your opinion? You're implying that the interpretation is the reason they think the fossils show evolution, when actually the fossils are the reason for the evolution interpretation. Species relation is what evolution is about, in many ways. I take it you don't believe in evolution?

The good thing about science is it's always ready to be disproven, and will readily accept, and even be replaced with, new discoveries. By nature, science is constantly looking for eliminations and/or new discoveries to replace the old. Religion, however, is not at all open to changes or updates. If I have to choose between the two, I choose evolution. Religion is the end of the road. Congratulations! You have figured it all out! There is absolutely no need to look further! Mystery solved!!! You can stop thinking now, forever!!!


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Johannmon
Evolution suggests only that it take a number of generations not years.

Since when? Where do you find that? That's news to me. Show me the christian site you found that on.

No christian site just simply carrying the logic to its end. Let me spell it out for you. Evolution requires rare random mutation plus the environmental influences upon that generation. Since we can produce mutations at will in any generation of a species we can speed the evolutionary clock by increasing the mutation rate many times over, even creating multiple mutations within a single generation. It is then only a matter of how many generations is required for a random mutation to make a cross species change. The time factor is to allow for random mutations that are beneficial to the species. When you can speed the mutation factor many times its natural rate, which is quite low, you in effect can make the limiting factor only one of generations not of time, since the time factor was only needed in order to produce suffient mutations for the generations to process.


Sure, the earth could have been seeded by aliens, or they may be doing genetic experiments. That's a far cry from "god," which is what I was referring to.

Your admission that aliens could do it is no different than an admission that a supreme being from another plane of existance could do it. Both are unknowns, and both represent a leap of imagination to accept as possibilites. Yet your hostility toward the one assumption tells much of your religious position and philosophical bent.



How else can you interpret them? How should they be interpreted, in your opinion? You're implying that the interpretation is the reason they think the fossils show evolution, when actually the fossils are the reason for the evolution interpretation. Species relation is what evolution is about, in many ways. I take it you don't believe in evolution?


Evolution, in my opinion, is an unproved hypothesis, since a practical mechanism by which it can be achieved has yet to be discovered. My own opinions lean toward there being an engineer and designer behind the complexity of this universe we live in and the things that live in it. By the way how do the fossils suggest that random mutation and natural selection have anything to do with the similarity between species and the observation that complexity often increases relative to time?


The good thing about science is it's always ready to be disproven, and will readily accept, and even be replaced with, new discoveries. By nature, science is constantly looking for eliminations and/or new discoveries to replace the old. Religion, however, is not at all open to changes or updates.


Ah if only this were true. Unfortunately the established scientific reasoning of the day places similar repressive influences upon the expression of new ideas that religion does. Why do you think there is such resistance to the scientific study of catastrophism or intelligent design or even scientific creationism. While many of these ideas spring from a philosophical bent this does not invalidate the scientific exploration of their tenants. In fact I would put to you that all science is predicated by defintion upon the philosophy of the scientist.

Let me explain. Philosophy is that which explains a persons existance and the reasons for that existance. If a persons philosophy includes a concept of a divine reality then it is a religion but at its heart all religions are a type of philosophy. Hence since philosophy is an explaination of a persons existance and the reasons thereof it is the foundation of interpretation for all experience. It is the lense by which you view and interpret the world and everything in it. Hence even scientific experimentation and interpretation is subject to the philosphy of the experimenter. The extent of philosphies influence can be minimized by strict adherence to the scientific method but it cannot be expunged completely from the observation interpretation process.
So it is that you belief in evolution, by faith since there is no incontrovertable evidence of its mechanism, is in itself a philosophical expression of your beliefs about life and your purpose here.


If I have to choose between the two, I choose evolution.

So if you choose that as your philosophy that is well and good but don't poo poo others if they do not choose to put faith in your belief system.


Religion is the end of the road. Congratulations! You have figured it all out! There is absolutely no need to look further! Mystery solved!!! You can stop thinking now, forever!!!


Religion is not the end of reason, it is the beginning just as your philosophy is not the end of your reason but its foundation and beginning. I would be careful what you say and how you say it for your angst toward an alternative philosophy almost labels you the fanatic.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
No christian site just simply carrying the logic to its end. Let me spell it out for you. Evolution requires rare random mutation plus the environmental influences upon that generation. Since we can produce mutations at will in any generation of a species we can speed the evolutionary clock by increasing the mutation rate many times over, even creating multiple mutations within a single generation. It is then only a matter of how many generations is required for a random mutation to make a cross species change. The time factor is to allow for random mutations that are beneficial to the species. When you can speed the mutation factor many times its natural rate, which is quite low, you in effect can make the limiting factor only one of generations not of time, since the time factor was only needed in order to produce suffient mutations for the generations to process.

No one has ever said that evolution should only require a few generations. In fact, it's well known that it takes millions of years. This is your own reasoning, which is flawed, IMO. Sure, we can produce rather random mutations, but that's not evolution any more than cancer is.


Your admission that aliens could do it is no different than an admission that a supreme being from another plane of existance could do it. Both are unknowns, and both represent a leap of imagination to accept as possibilites. Yet your hostility toward the one assumption tells much of your religious position and philosophical bent.

It's entirely different. I'm not saying that one species created the entire universe, much less always existed. Eternal existence contradicts creationism completely.


Evolution, in my opinion, is an unproved hypothesis since a practical mechanism by which it can be achieved has yet to be discovered. My own opinions lean toward there being an engineer and designer behind the complexity of this universe we live in and the things that live in it. By the way how do the fossils suggest that random mutation and natural selection have anything to do with the similarity between species and the observation that complexity often increases relative to time?

As I've already explained, there's more than one aspect to evolution. The mechanism has not been proven, but biological evolution is a fact. We don't know why gravity exists, but it does. It's also considered fact. While I'm definitely open to new developments in evolution, I sure won't claim it's not fact as of yet. There's far too much evidence supporting it.


Ah if only this were true.

Show me where it isn't true. Scientists, by nature, try to prove each other wrong, in order to find hard facts that simply cannot be disputed.


Why do you think there is such resistance to the scientific study of catastrophism or intelligent design or even scientific creationism.

There's absolutely no way to test, or even study creationsim. It's a dead end before you even start. Intelligent design is the same thing...just a different term. Catastrophism is studied, to the best of our capabilities. Things that happened millions of years ago are very difficult to study, but they're trying.


Hence even scientific experimentation and interpretation is subject to the philosphy of the experimenter.

Philosophies based on religion are inherited. Others develope their philosophy from life experiences and learnings. Religious "philosophy" (if you can even call it that) is preordained, and forced upon children at an early age, in most cases. It is indeed a form of brainwashing. There is little originality or uniqueness in the process, IMO. It actually has a virus-like quality.


So if you choose that as your philosophy that is well and good but don't poo poo others if they do not choose to put faith in your belief system.

Most of them never had a choice, for the reason I stated above.


Religion is not the end of reason, it is the beginning just as your philosophy is not the end of your reason but its foundation and beginning. I would be careful what you say and how you say it for your angst toward an alternative philosophy almost labels you the fanatic.

Yes, it is. Religion is anti-progressive and anti-education. Religion has always denounced advancement and discovery. Fanatic? Pulease!
I see another religious fanatic taking offense to nonreligious views because they don't support your bible brainwashing. To the religious fanatic, it's more important that everything fit into the context of the bible, than to seek actual facts.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join