Intelligent design has nothing to do with being "the perfect design".
Scientifically it has to do with the sheer odds of everything just so happens to work together and function properly. The sheer complexity of biology and the universe. How it all works out well.
I suggest you go read a book about microbiology, and just how complex everything is in our bodies. Sure there are many people who some things wrong with them. But for all that goes wrong, they have thousands of things that function properly.
The odds are completely astronomical.
Really? I didnt know you read hebrew. Because everything must clearly translate between two completely different languages.
The problem with my "theory" is that I do not have a theory. Other than believing in God and that he created the earth, and that Jesus is God and died for my sins. Thats it. There is no "saving God for the ever receeding list of things we still cant explain". It is as simple as God is the force that created the universe and the mechanisms it runs on.
I have not studied the bible enough to get a proper understanding, nor will I claim to understand it. But days may very well be actual days, or it could be millions-billions of years for God. So far the only part of the Bible I have decent knowledge on, is the New Testament. Which is the only part NEEDED for my faith.
Everyday I question further, to try to determine the specifics of how and what I think God did when He created the universe.
I am far from settled on a stance.
If you actually paid attention to what I had said there, then you would may have realized that I said "As for the universe being created in 6 days, I do not have a answer. Perhaps it was 6 days, perhaps the "days" are actually millions of years. "
Focus on this quote "I do not have a answer".
This thread is about creationalism and trying to understand what creationalists believe, and why. All I was saying in that quote was just speculation, not based on any particular belief, because I do not have one currently.
That is complete bull. There may be only one evolutionary process, but Micro evolution and macro evolution are indeed different things.
Micro evolution is best seen as dogs today. Dogs look and have many many traits different from their wolf coyote etc counterparts. Yet you can still breed them all together. This is due to a process known as "natural selection". Otherwise known as survival of the fittest. The dogs were bred for specific desireable traits. As a result there are many many completely different looking animals. None of these breeds though, have developed any new organs or anything like that.
Macro evolution is a similar but different matter. Parts of macro evolution do NOT quite fit with micro evolution. Here is a good example.
A dinosaur has feathers. Unless a sudden drastic mutation occured, that gave this dinosaur wings, it would not make sense for it to have half of a wing developed. That would give it a handicap compared to its fellow dinosaurs in the evolutionary process. Its arm would be useless as a arm, and useless as a wing.
Lets say a human began developing a tail. In a wild environment, where the fittest survive, that tail would serve no purpose. It may even hinder with the persons ability to move. As it actually has.(there is a Indian kid who is revered as a incarnation of a "hindu?" god, due to haveing a tail. This tail actually makes it difficult for him to walk and run and stuff.
To put it in more simple terms.
Micro evolution. Proven. A good example would be a short necked girraffe ancestor growing a longer neck over time.
This type of evolution is where a creature which has characteristics that best suit the environment thrive over its slightly inferior counterpart. It is adapting traits which already exist. So a nose may become more sensitive. A eye may be able to see farther. Fur may grow thicker or thinner. Height may change etc. Extreme cases of this, can be seen through our theorized evolution from apes. Apes themselves bear a resembelance, and the features distinguishing us are still similar. But they do not grow something new.
There is loads of scientific knowledge about this process. Humanity has a good grasp on it.
Macro evolution. Still has some flaws. A good example would be a dinosaur turning into a bird.
This type of evolution, involves the creation of something new. It involves more drastic changes. It involves a species becoming something entirely different than what it was before. So it would be like a lizard becoming a human. It involves a entirely new trait to appear. Rather than the modification of a old trait.
Its main problem is a lack of good transition fossils to show evidence. This has not been yet observed in modern times.
It involves half formed organs and limbs and stuff.
There are still parts that need to be explained. As this process has yet to be observed in modern times. Currently this part of evolution speculation is used the most, and many theories are made about different species.
Together they form the process known as Evolution.
Their processes are the same. A living organisms dna changes over time to become a different organism. But they are different, in the effect they have.
You certainly must view evolution at the whole timeline. But if you do not also look at it closely, then you will lack proper understanding.
Well I cannot source where my statistics come from as they were not specific statistics. But statistics and probability DO relate to the probability of evolution.
Science is all about finding out what is most probable, and then testing what is most probable.
When you have something that is really really unprobable, then you need to seek to find a probable explaination.
Any explaination is better than no explaination. So if you are unable to find a more probable explanation then you must use the unprobable explanation to be able to move forward. As you go on you may find more evidence to increase its probability. In the end the most probable and statistically likely explanation is what you are to go by.
With evolution, despite how statistically unlikely it is, there has not been a alternative explanation(other than religions). Which makes it the only current explanation.
Even if someone comes up with another theory, this may still be more probable.
In science you use the most probable theory, until you either discover it is trash and discover a new better theory, or you continue to find more evidence to support that theory.
This is easily viewed in our theory of the structure of the atom.
I am not arguing over things we do know. I am questioning their validity, and keeping a open mind to the possibility that we may be putting the puzzle together wrong. That there could be something else that fits even better.
As you said, we dont know about the things we dont know. So we dont know about the possible theory that may fit even better than the theory of evolution.
Please please please, do not mistake what I am saying as "cptenn94 says evolution is false." or anything like that.
I simply question all things. I keep a open mind that someone missed something somewhere, and is putting the puzzle together wrong.
I agree completely that Evolution is the most likely, and currently only scientific theory that explains the origin of all our species.
Whether my faith in God has me thinking of creationalism, or seeing God as the shaper behind evolution or whatever, it does not change how evolution is the most scientifically accurate theory so far.
God is a mystic unseen force. His power and acts are not explainable through science. So as such science does not interfere with God.
If there is one scientific find that would make me the most happy, it would be a find that would cause them to have to completely rewrite the textbooks on the entire subject. I would just be happy, because it would help turn down the arrogance of many scientists, and encourage others to be more open mind to the fact they could be wrong.
So in conclusion you may view me as argueing about nothing. You may even view what I do as a waste of time. But to me it is not. It is so amazing just sitting and pondering all the various things about the universe. To question the things we know, and create other theories to explain them. Many of them are absurd, but they can also be fun.
(for example I once had a discussion with my dad about why we never find bigfoot. One of the theories was that he is actually a alien and has a cloaking device, and is very intelligent, and thus can never really be found. Obviously this is a absurd theory, and is not serious.)
I dont know if you have ever read the manga "deathnote"(if you did not, then I recommend it). If you did, then you would remember L. L made many seemingly absurd theories, that did not make very logical sense. Yet in the end he was right.
I just really enjoy to sit and ponder the mysteries of the universe.
Yes on death note, and to me this is sad. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that is just uneducated on the subject. Basically everything you said up their is how I used to feel when I was a teenager raised in an extremely religious family. As for the original texts. I researched it all heavily. I know more about biblical texts than most people. King James Version and earlier versions, (fun fact- I am actually a descendant of king james)
You admit the numbers are astronomical but I don't think you really understand what that means
Sure winning the lottery 50 times in a row seems in possible. For the lifespan of a human it the numbers would never allow it if I only played a couple hundred times! BUT this is basic probability. It becomes much more likely if I play hundreds of trillions of years in a row! Now the odds on lottery are much less likely then the odds on many genetic mutations and there are other factors you're ignoring. The simplest thing is to tell you to research it more. The fossil record is strong evidence but it isn't nearly all they have to go on. You really need to get some legit education on it. I didn't fully understand how proven evolution was until I was in college.
Intelligent design has nothing to do with being "the perfect design".
Scientifically it has to do with the sheer odds of everything just so happens to work together and function properly. The sheer complexity of biology and the universe. How it all works out well.
I suggest you go read a book about microbiology, and just how complex everything is in our bodies. Sure there are many people who some things wrong with them. But for all that goes wrong, they have thousands of things that function properly.
The odds are completely astronomical.
Really? I didnt know you read hebrew. Because everything must clearly translate between two completely different languages.
The problem with my "theory" is that I do not have a theory. Other than believing in God and that he created the earth, and that Jesus is God and died for my sins. Thats it. There is no "saving God for the ever receeding list of things we still cant explain". It is as simple as God is the force that created the universe and the mechanisms it runs on.
I have not studied the bible enough to get a proper understanding, nor will I claim to understand it. But days may very well be actual days, or it could be millions-billions of years for God. So far the only part of the Bible I have decent knowledge on, is the New Testament. Which is the only part NEEDED for my faith.
Everyday I question further, to try to determine the specifics of how and what I think God did when He created the universe.
I am far from settled on a stance.
If you actually paid attention to what I had said there, then you would may have realized that I said "As for the universe being created in 6 days, I do not have a answer. Perhaps it was 6 days, perhaps the "days" are actually millions of years. "
Focus on this quote "I do not have a answer".
This thread is about creationalism and trying to understand what creationalists believe, and why. All I was saying in that quote was just speculation, not based on any particular belief, because I do not have one currently.
That is complete bull. There may be only one evolutionary process, but Micro evolution and macro evolution are indeed different things.
Micro evolution is best seen as dogs today. Dogs look and have many many traits different from their wolf coyote etc counterparts. Yet you can still breed them all together. This is due to a process known as "natural selection". Otherwise known as survival of the fittest. The dogs were bred for specific desireable traits. As a result there are many many completely different looking animals. None of these breeds though, have developed any new organs or anything like that.
Macro evolution is a similar but different matter. Parts of macro evolution do NOT quite fit with micro evolution. Here is a good example.
A dinosaur has feathers. Unless a sudden drastic mutation occured, that gave this dinosaur wings, it would not make sense for it to have half of a wing developed. That would give it a handicap compared to its fellow dinosaurs in the evolutionary process. Its arm would be useless as a arm, and useless as a wing.
Lets say a human began developing a tail. In a wild environment, where the fittest survive, that tail would serve no purpose. It may even hinder with the persons ability to move. As it actually has.(there is a Indian kid who is revered as a incarnation of a "hindu?" god, due to haveing a tail. This tail actually makes it difficult for him to walk and run and stuff.
To put it in more simple terms.
Micro evolution. Proven. A good example would be a short necked girraffe ancestor growing a longer neck over time.
This type of evolution is where a creature which has characteristics that best suit the environment thrive over its slightly inferior counterpart. It is adapting traits which already exist. So a nose may become more sensitive. A eye may be able to see farther. Fur may grow thicker or thinner. Height may change etc. Extreme cases of this, can be seen through our theorized evolution from apes. Apes themselves bear a resembelance, and the features distinguishing us are still similar. But they do not grow something new.
There is loads of scientific knowledge about this process. Humanity has a good grasp on it.
Macro evolution. Still has some flaws. A good example would be a dinosaur turning into a bird.
This type of evolution, involves the creation of something new. It involves more drastic changes. It involves a species becoming something entirely different than what it was before. So it would be like a lizard becoming a human. It involves a entirely new trait to appear. Rather than the modification of a old trait.
Its main problem is a lack of good transition fossils to show evidence. This has not been yet observed in modern times.
It involves half formed organs and limbs and stuff.
There are still parts that need to be explained. As this process has yet to be observed in modern times. Currently this part of evolution speculation is used the most, and many theories are made about different species.
Together they form the process known as Evolution.
Their processes are the same. A living organisms dna changes over time to become a different organism. But they are different, in the effect they have.
You certainly must view evolution at the whole timeline. But if you do not also look at it closely, then you will lack proper understanding.
Well I cannot source where my statistics come from as they were not specific statistics. But statistics and probability DO relate to the probability of evolution.
Science is all about finding out what is most probable, and then testing what is most probable.
When you have something that is really really unprobable, then you need to seek to find a probable explaination.
Any explaination is better than no explaination. So if you are unable to find a more probable explanation then you must use the unprobable explanation to be able to move forward. As you go on you may find more evidence to increase its probability. In the end the most probable and statistically likely explanation is what you are to go by.
With evolution, despite how statistically unlikely it is, there has not been a alternative explanation(other than religions). Which makes it the only current explanation.
Even if someone comes up with another theory, this may still be more probable.
In science you use the most probable theory, until you either discover it is trash and discover a new better theory, or you continue to find more evidence to support that theory.
This is easily viewed in our theory of the structure of the atom.
I am not arguing over things we do know. I am questioning their validity, and keeping a open mind to the possibility that we may be putting the puzzle together wrong. That there could be something else that fits even better.
As you said, we dont know about the things we dont know. So we dont know about the possible theory that may fit even better than the theory of evolution.
Please please please, do not mistake what I am saying as "cptenn94 says evolution is false." or anything like that.
I simply question all things. I keep a open mind that someone missed something somewhere, and is putting the puzzle together wrong.
I agree completely that Evolution is the most likely, and currently only scientific theory that explains the origin of all our species.
Whether my faith in God has me thinking of creationalism, or seeing God as the shaper behind evolution or whatever, it does not change how evolution is the most scientifically accurate theory so far.
God is a mystic unseen force. His power and acts are not explainable through science. So as such science does not interfere with God.
If there is one scientific find that would make me the most happy, it would be a find that would cause them to have to completely rewrite the textbooks on the entire subject. I would just be happy, because it would help turn down the arrogance of many scientists, and encourage others to be more open mind to the fact they could be wrong.
So in conclusion you may view me as argueing about nothing. You may even view what I do as a waste of time. But to me it is not. It is so amazing just sitting and pondering all the various things about the universe. To question the things we know, and create other theories to explain them. Many of them are absurd, but they can also be fun.
(for example I once had a discussion with my dad about why we never find bigfoot. One of the theories was that he is actually a alien and has a cloaking device, and is very intelligent, and thus can never really be found. Obviously this is a absurd theory, and is not serious.)
I dont know if you have ever read the manga "deathnote"(if you did not, then I recommend it). If you did, then you would remember L. L made many seemingly absurd theories, that did not make very logical sense. Yet in the end he was right.
I just really enjoy to sit and ponder the mysteries of the universe.
Nice. I love an open mind. I'm not religious, I'm more of an agnostic that's more inclined to believe there's a higher power (more so for events in my life that I won't disclose). Be it malevolent, benevolent, or totally negligent of the life it created. It doesn't even necessarily have to be all-knowing, or possess some kind of immaculate intelligence. Doctrines, stories, and movies have painted a picture of what god is.
I find it funny, scientists, or people that claim to have a great understanding of science, say that we can never observe the divine, hence it's pointless to investigate. However, they also implicitly admit, in that same statement, that we don't know what the divine is. The definitions in dictionaries are created from our imaginations, and describes, tacitly or blatantly, that it is intrinsically unperceivable. How can we say that if we don't even know what it is? We're the ones that created that concept.
We still have so much to understand about our own conscious, especially our unconscious mind. Who knows what eye-popping, jaw-dropping observations we will make inside that unexplored world.
Who knows what avenues Quantum Mechanics have for us to explore. Who knows where the theory of multiple universes will take us (i.e. who knows what we will observe in those universes, how involved they are in our own; if it's not a dead end of course.).
Of course, this will probably takes hundreds and hundreds of years of technological advancement. So, I have to agree, what we have now are the best/only explanations of how our world works, of how science works. I just named a few to show there is scientific investigations going on that has a great degree of uncertainty. There are so many possibilities.
As for evolution in particular, I find the sudden appearance and disappearance of hair on the lanugo embryo interesting (also common on other animals and mammals, but not all. And yes, this has been used as an argument in favor of evolution). I find the similarities in the DNA of different species intriguing, and the idea that portions of the DNA (RNA) of different species can be swapped with another but still replicate in its usual manner very suggestive.
On to my next segment:
@23:50-29:45
People often say, "If there was such a thing as intelligent design, scientists would have discovered it by now". What makes you think anyone would even fund them to look for it? What makes you think they'll even risk openly expressing such a interpretation? If god isn't real, believing in him causes no serious damage as long as we're not fanatics or extremists. The view against homosexuals is still there, but I'm coming across more and more of religious people that are accepting of them. If god is man, that is to say the scientists we place so much faith in, to the point their human nature is ignored and obsolete (hence becoming god, in a sense) - then we get perilously close to creating an organization that has absolute power over our beliefs since it is in our physical world and we perceive it.
I mean really, what harm is there in questioning a few things? The man in the video (David Berlinski) said it best, "an unholy zealous". People berate followers of religion for not understanding their own doctrine, but let's be honest, how many non-scientists that believes in evolution truly understand the biological aspects and experiments? And if you're one that has a solid grasp on all of it, then just don't criticize the followers of religion, there's people among you that are ignorantly following what they read as well. I wonder how many of these scientific terms and biological components these supporters of evolution even understand when they're reading an article. I think it's at a point where scientists could describe an event in their experiment as valid, even though it's utterly impossible, and deceive a huge number of its followers.
This guy caught my interest (a relatively new approach to evolution, the first article published was around January I believe):
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
He's investigating evolution from a Physics standpoint (and he very much supports evolution). I'm going to keep an eye on his research, but anyways...
"How can Morowitz and other law proponents just dispense with Darwin at a time when doubting him has cost many scientists their jobs?It's because law proponents make clear that their alternative is as strictly naturalistic as the chance one. Because they are not arguing that humans were designed for a purpose, they can even argue, without generating career-limiting controversy, that intelligent life -- as opposed to life generally -- probably evolved only once, on this planet: "It required a kind of industrial revolution in terms of energy production," says one. Splitting the difference between law and chance, origin-of-life researcher Nick Lane thinks that life of some kind would probably emerge on any wet, rocky planet, but that "complex" life forms are a matter of chance."
^That's in the last article. His approach is that life isn't random, that it's governed by natural laws (as you can see in the other articles). Of course, they must be careful, because there's a thin line between "life being developed by natural laws" and "life being designed". As you can see, practitioners of this law theory are being/have been careful, their funding and reputation is on the line here.
Why does mainstream science supports only evolution and not any other alternative, why haven't any other alternative surfaced as of yet?
This is the part where we insert the LOTR theme: One does not simply support an alternative to evolution.
I feel like there's a lot of "business" that goes on in science that a lot of people overlook. We don't pay attention to the monetary aspect of science and the influence it has on its research. I'm still looking into that, myself.
Controlling the extent and designation of scientific research is probably the most strategical move one can make as far as influencing beliefs are concerned. Especially when it comes to one's education.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to exaggerate this, I just highly recommend taking this into consideration when pondering about the lack of evidence supporting any kind of alternate theory, how come there's a lack of investigation (people can't just pull money out of nowhere and fund all the expensive equipment they will need - they will need someone to fund them), as well as "how come there's so much evidence" that supports evolution.
I find the evolution theory an intriguing explanation, but it could also be just a piece of a large puzzle. I look forward to seeing what Jeremy England's Physics approach brings to the table. Especially when he tests it on living organisms.
ote: When I say "you", I'm speaking generally. I'm more or less in agreement with this post. Just trying to offer my own perspective.
Nice. I love an open mind. I'm not religious, I'm more of an agnostic that's more inclined to believe there's a higher power (more so for events in my life that I won't disclose). Be it malevolent, benevolent, or totally negligent of the life it created. It doesn't even necessarily have to be all-knowing, or possess some kind of immaculate intelligence. Doctrines, stories, and movies have painted a picture of what god is.
I find it funny, scientists, or people that claim to have a great understanding of science, say that we can never observe the divine, hence it's pointless to investigate. However, they also implicitly admit, in that same statement, that we don't know what the divine is. The definitions in dictionaries are created from our imaginations, and describes, tacitly or blatantly, that it is intrinsically unperceivable. How can we say that if we don't even know what it is? We're the ones that created that concept.
We still have so much to understand about our own conscious, especially our unconscious mind. Who knows what eye-popping, jaw-dropping observations we will make inside that unexplored world.
Who knows what avenues Quantum Mechanics have for us to explore. Who knows where the theory of multiple universes will take us (i.e. who knows what we will observe in those universes, how involved they are in our own).
Of course, this will probably takes hundreds and hundreds of years of technological advancement. So, I have to agree, what we have now are the best/only explanations of how our world works, of how science works. I just named a few to show there is scientific investigations going on that has a great degree of uncertainty. There are so many possibilities.
As for evolution in particular, I find the sudden appearance and disappearance of hair on the lanugo embryo interesting (also common on other animals and mammals, but not all. And yes, this has been used as an argument in favor of evolution). I find the similarities in the DNA of different species intriguing, and the idea that portions of the DNA (RNA) of different species can be swapped with another but still replicate in its usual manner very suggestive.
On to my next segment:
@23:50-29:45
People often say, "If there was such a thing as intelligent design, scientists would have discovered it by now". What makes you think anyone would even fund them to look for it? What makes you think they'll even risk openly expressing such a interpretation? If god isn't real, believing in him causes no serious damage as long as we're not fanatics or extremists. The view against homosexuals is still there, but I'm coming across more and more of religious people that are accepting of them. If god is man, that is to say the scientists we place so much faith in, to the point their human nature is ignored and obsolete (hence becoming god, in a sense) - then we get perilously to creating an organization that has absolute power over our beliefs since it is in our physical world and we perceive it.
I mean really, what harm is there in questioning a few things? The man in the video (David Berlinski) said it best, "an unholy zealous". People berate followers of religion for not understanding their own doctrine, but let's be honest, how many non-scientists that believes in evolution truly understand the biological aspects and experiments? And if you're one that has a solid grasp on all of it, then just don't criticize the followers of religion, there's people among you that are ignorantly following what they read as well. I wonder how many of these scientific terms and biological components these supporters of evolution even understand when they're reading an article. I think it's at a point where scientists could describe an event in their experiment as valid, even though it's utterly impossible, and deceive a huge number of its followers.
This guy caught my interest (a relatively new approach to evolution, the first article published was around January I believe):
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
He's investigating evolution from a Physics standpoint (and he very much supports evolution). I'm going to keep an eye on his research, but anyways...
"How can Morowitz and other law proponents just dispense with Darwin at a time when doubting him has cost many scientists their jobs?It's because law proponents make clear that their alternative is as strictly naturalistic as the chance one. Because they are not arguing that humans were designed for a purpose, they can even argue, without generating career-limiting controversy, that intelligent life -- as opposed to life generally -- probably evolved only once, on this planet: "It required a kind of industrial revolution in terms of energy production," says one. Splitting the difference between law and chance, origin-of-life researcher Nick Lane thinks that life of some kind would probably emerge on any wet, rocky planet, but that "complex" life forms are a matter of chance."
^That's in the last article. His approach is that life isn't random, that it's governed by natural laws (as you can see in the other articles). Of course, they must be careful, because there's a thin line between "life being developed by natural laws" and "life being designed". As you can see, practitioners of this law theory are being/have been careful, their funding and reputation is on the line here.
Why does mainstream science supports only evolution and not any other alternative, why haven't any other alternative surfaced as of yet?
This is the part where we insert the LOTR theme: One does not simply support an alternative to evolution.
I feel like there's a lot of "business" that goes on in science that a lot of people overlook. We don't pay attention to the monetary aspect of science and the influence it has on its research. I'm still looking into that, myself.
Controlling the extent and designation of scientific research is probably the most strategical move one can make as far as influencing beliefs are concerned. Especially when it comes to one's education.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to exaggerate this, I just highly recommend taking this into consideration when pondering about the lack of evidence supporting any kind of alternate theory, how come there's a lack of investigation (people can't just pull money out of nowhere and fund all the expensive equipment they will need - they will need someone to fund them), as well as "how come there's so much evidence" that supports evolution.
I find the evolution theory an intriguing explanation, but it could also be just a piece of a large puzzle. I look forward to seeing what Jeremy England's Physics approach brings to the table. Especially when he tests it on living organisms
You misunderstood. People often say this on the premise that maybe it does exist, that it's just not observable. Hence why I got into all the preconceived notions of the "divine".
There's a few things wrong with this:
1) Do you believe politicians lie? I'm sure your answer is going to be yes (at least I hope so). They can lie about being religious, especially since being religious doesn't even require one to attend a church. I even grew up in a religious family, the perfect cover if I wanted to lie about being religious. They can even convince their atheist family to cover for them if they wanted, after all it must be neat having a relative in office. You just gave great incentive for them to lie, "they're much more likely to be elected if they say they do believe in god".
2) I'm a bit confused on why you mentioned the politician bit as a counterargument. Is this suppose to have a relation to the pressures being placed on scientists? What is your reasoning for evolution pretty much dominating the education system... if politicians are afraid to claim atheistic views?
3) Politicians wouldn't have a conspicuous role in this, it's not some guy in office openly saying, "Fund this. Don't fund that". They can endorse atheistic views without anyone knowing it. Research don't exactly come with a name stamp that says "Senator so and so" gave us a grant for this research.
4) The National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health are just two establishments that are responsible for the funding (some organizations are private). Some man whose expertise are economics and the governing of a country, state, city etc. would never be perceived as allowing to make important decisions in scientific matters. If so, to a very limited extent. In fact, the existence of these establishments would clear politicians of any religious criticism since there are higher ups in these establishments that oversees its operations. And since the politicians are perceived as ignorant in the world that is science, no one would blame them if they're not willing to stick their heads in something that could progress or regress generations of people.
Whether it's the politicians or the establishments themselves that are applying such pressure, it's still very much present.
You misunderstood. People often say this on the premise that maybe it does exist, that it's just not observable. Hence why I got into all the preconceived notions of the "divine".
There's a few things wrong this:
1) Do you believe politicians lie? I'm sure your answer is going to be yes (at least I hope so). They can lie about being religious, especially since being religious doesn't even require one to attend a church. I even grew up in a religious family, the perfect cover if I wanted to lie about being religious. They can even convince their atheist family to cover for them if they wanted, after all it must be neat having a relative in office. You just gave great incentive for them to lie, "they're much more likely to be elected if they say they do believe in god".
2) I'm a bit confused on why you mentioned the politician bit as a counterargument. Is this suppose to have a relation to the pressures being placed on scientists? What is your reasoning for evolution pretty much dominating the education system... if politicians are afraid to claim atheistic views?
3) Politicians wouldn't have a conspicuous role in this, it's not some guy in office openly saying, "Fund this. Don't fund that". They can endorse atheistic views without anyone knowing it. Research don't exactly come with a name stamp that says "Senator so and so" gave us a grant for this research.
4) The National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health are just two establishments that are responsible for the funding (some organizations are private). Some man whose expertise are economics and the governing of a country, state, city etc. would never be perceived as allowing to make important decisions in scientific matters. If so, to a very limited extent. In fact, the existence of these establishments would clear politicians of any religious criticism since there are higher ups in these establishments that oversees its operations. And since the politicians are perceived as ignorant compared to the world that is science, no one would blame them if they're not willing to stick their heads in something that could progress or regress generations of people.
Well we couldn't observe the divine with our current knowledge, could we? At least not the divine in a religious sense. Why wouldn't it be possible that the universe itself as a whole is a conscious entity? (Kinda like "Deus est natura"- even Darwin said that he believes in Spinoza's god, that is nature itself).
I always wonder why religious people assume that there must be a single god who expects us to read an old book and recite words in order to go to heaven?
Why not gods?
What can we know about a divine being (beings) other than it (they) is stronger and more intelligent, strong and intelligent enough to create the universe. Which may not even be difficult to a god. Why would we worship the unknown? Or we worship it precisely because we can personify it as we wish?
Oh no it was not a specific counterargument. Obviously scientific researches are not funded by individual politicians. It's a fact though that most politicians do claim to believe in god. "God bless America". "In god we trust". If we are talking about America...where the majority does believe in some sort of a god.
I've seen statistics that say 1/3 of Americans are creationists.
As for evolution being taught at schools...Well some groups are also interested in funding creationism to be taught at schools. All groups are interested in their beliefs to be taught. So the reason why evolution is still the mainstream theory, in my opinion is because this is the best supported theory and it's accepted by the majority of scientists- however I also heard creationists say it's not. Whom should we believe? Most of us are not scientists, so we can only use second hand information. Creationists are just as convinced though about their 'truth'. So it's all up to the individual to decide what amount of evidence is enough to him/her. However I often see people having misconceptions about evolution. I don't know everything either, but just because I don't understand something fully, it doesn't mean it's false. But those who are just spreading the same misconceptions, how can they claim to be certain?
Also, even if evolution is incorrect, it won't make god automatically exist.
So evolution is taught because it is a scientific explanation, why the religious explanations should be taught at church, or maybe in alternative classes. But there are private schools funded by churches.
Now politicians have to follow the principle of separation of state and church. But still most of them claim to be religious. If the majority of voters are believers, obviously it's beneficial to the politicians to go with the flow. They do make public polls.
Well we couldn't observe the divine with our current knowledge, could we? At least not the divine in a religious sense. Why wouldn't it be possible that the universe itself as a whole is a conscious entity? (Kinda like "Deus est natura"- even Darwin said that he believes in Spinoza's god, that is nature itself).
I always wonder why religious people assume that there must be a single god who expects us to read an old book and recite words in order to go to heaven?
Why not gods?
What can we know about a divine being (beings) other than it (they) is stronger and more intelligent, strong and intelligent enough to create the universe. Which may not even be difficult to a god. Why would we worship the unknown? Or we worship it precisely because we can personify it as we wish?
Oh no it was not a specific counterargument. Obviously scientific researches are not funded by individual politicians. It's a fact though that most politicians do claim to believe in god. "God bless America". "In god we trust". If we are talking about America...where the majority does believe in some sort of a god.
I've seen statistics that say 1/3 of Americans are creationists.
As for evolution being taught at schools...Well some groups are also interested in funding creationism to be taught at schools. All groups are interested in their beliefs to be taught. So the reason why evolution is still the mainstream theory, in my opinion is because this is the best supported theory and it's accepted by the majority of scientists- however I also heard creationists say it's not. Whom should we believe? Most of us are not scientists, so we can only use second hand information. Creationists are just as convinced though about their 'truth'. So it's all up to the individual to decide what amount of evidence is enough to him/her. However I often see people having misconceptions about evolution. I don't know everything either, but just because I don't understand something fully, it doesn't mean it's false. But those who are just spreading the same misconceptions, how can they claim to be certain?
Also, even if evolution is incorrect, it won't make god automatically exist.
So evolution is taught because it is a scientific explanation, why the religious explanations should be taught at church, or maybe in alternative classes. But there are private schools funded by churches.
Now politicians have to follow the principle of separation of state and church. But still most of them claim to be religious. If the majority of voters are believers, obviously it's beneficial to the politicians to go with the flow. They do make public polls.
A huge portion of your post seems to be in agreement with me, or you unknowingly share (maybe knowingly?) the same thought processes. For example, I too said that we can't observe it with our current knowledge (I'm not sure if you read my full post or not). You have a lot of "why's" in your post, basically all of which expresses my thoughts more or less. I greatly implied in my posts that we're all working from a lot of assumptions (particular when I said 'god' could be malevolent, benevolent, or just negligent of the life he created). I didn't go through every single assumption, but the point is still there, nonetheless.
And yep, I even thought that maybe there is no higher power, of any kind. I still keep that thought in my mind while I research.
You also seem to understand the conundrum - who do we believe? And if you understand that, then I assume you also understand there's so many people that speak of evolution, but don't truly understand the biological components and scientific terms (some of them even make arguments like, "because so many scientists believes in it"). And you're right, we should never believe fully believe what creationists have to say about it either, they too are not above their human nature, so there's bound to be a great deal of bias. Ah, you stated that even if evolution gets proven false, that it doesn't mean there's automatically a god. I agree with you, in fact I've tried to get others to see this as well. However, there are scientists that don't see it this way. If evolution gets proven false, there's going to be an overwhelming amount of controversy. They even have to be careful on how they phrase their statements. In the world of science, it's not "evolution vs some other alternative theory", it's "evolution vs god". As long as mainstream science see it this way (mainly because that's all the opposition they're getting, even the idea of intelligent design should be approached warily according to their behavior and statements), there's going to be a losing side vs a winning side. A lot of this stuff is basic human nature, and should speak for itself on why mainstream science isn't all too enthusiastic to embrace an alternative, because to them, the only alternative is god (even though it may not be true).
Just the idea of the opposing side being right seems to get everyone angry, and it doesn't seem like either side can be placated. I'm talking about the scientists here.
Your points about the infiltration of evolution into school are reasonable. Putting aside any ulterior motives the government may have had, I'll ask you a question. Do you think, it is natural for humans, after coming this far (even reaching into schools), to offer no resistance and just welcome opposing views with open arms? If you answer no, then ask yourself how would they put that resistance into play?
Though, you probably already answered this when you suggested we don't know which side to believe, since it implies there may be bias in the evolution theory as well. I also agree that those who are against evolution, can't be so certain as well since a lot of them don't actually know what it's about. And both sides seems to be choosing what fits their personal beliefs (though I have seen some religious people that believe in evolution, or at least they claimed to be religious).
Also, the argument that just because we don't fully understand something, doesn't mean it's false could also be an argument creationists use. It turns into a long series of people defeating their own perspectives with their own logic. Honestly, I've moved pass that ol' argument phase. I mostly just research for my own benefit, try to put some pieces together, not to go and use it in a debate or show off. In debates, the victors walk away thinking because they won that argument, the side they support is true. Victory in arguments seem to reinforce false ideas.
Yes, we have slogans (though, old, and probably won't be going anywhere anytime soon because of the sentimental value) that would support the idea of us being a religious country (and there are indeed a lot of religious people here). Readdressing the education, I wonder what this says about our government. I doubt if the politicians (again, putting aside any ideas there's mischievous involvement on their part. I don't have any conspiracy theories, I'm just not fully trusting.) understand the inner-workings of evolution, yet it was allowed into public schools. Now, it's also a good thing, we wouldn't want politicians restricting the teachings of scientific discoveries just because they couldn't understand it. Though, my point is that this can be exploited, and I wonder if we would ever notice such an exploit...
We only get one life. "Life's purpose", "the afterlife" -these are ideas that are hanging in the balance. I think we should be careful of giving science this much control over such beliefs.
As I end this, I would say both sides needs to reevaluate their knowledge on the subject, as well as consider potential influence and bias of their respective studies (creationism or evolution). Though, who am I to tell someone what to do? I normally don't try to intrude on anyone's beliefs.
A huge portion of your post seems to be in agreement with me, or you unknowingly share (maybe knowingly?) the same thought processes. For example, I too said that we can't observe it with our current knowledge (I'm not sure if you read my full post or not). You have a lot of "why's" in your post, basically all of which expresses my thoughts more or less. I greatly implied in my posts that we're all working from a lot of assumptions (particular when I said 'god' could be malevolent, benevolent, or just negligent of the life he created). I didn't go through every single assumption, but the point is still there, nonetheless.
And yep, I even thought that maybe there is no higher power, of any kind. I still keep that thought in my mind while I research.
You also seem to understand the conundrum - who do we believe? And if you understand that, then I assume you also understand there's so many people that speak of evolution, but don't truly understand the biological components and scientific terms (some of them even make arguments like, "because so many scientists believes in it"). And you're right, we should never believe fully believe what creationists have to say about it either, they too are not above their human nature, so there's bound to be a great deal of bias. Ah, you stated that even if evolution gets proven false, that it doesn't mean there's automatically a god. I agree with you, in fact I've tried to get others to see this as well. However, there are scientists that don't see it this way. If evolution gets proven false, there's going to be an overwhelming amount of controversy. They even have to be careful on how they phrase their statements. In the world of science, it's not "evolution vs some other alternative theory", it's "evolution vs god". As long as mainstream science see it this way (mainly because that's all the opposition they're getting, even the idea of intelligent design should be approached warily according to their behavior and statements), there's going to be a losing side vs a winning side. A lot of this stuff is basic human nature, and should speak for itself on why mainstream science isn't all too enthusiastic to embrace an alternative, because to them, the only alternative is god (even though it may not be true).
Just the idea of the opposing side being right seems to get everyone angry, and it doesn't seem like either side can be placated. I'm talking about the scientists here.
Your points about the infiltration of evolution into school are reasonable. Putting aside any ulterior motives the government may have had, I'll ask you a question. Do you think, it is natural for humans, after coming this far (even reaching into schools), to offer no resistance and just welcome opposing views with open arms? If you answer no, then ask yourself how would they put that resistance into play?
Though, you probably already answered this when you suggested we don't know which side to believe, since it implies there may be bias in the evolution theory as well. I also agree that those who are against evolution, can't be so certain as well since a lot of them don't actually know what it's about. And both sides seems to be choosing what fits their personal beliefs (though I have seen some religious people that believe in evolution, or at least they claimed to be religious).
Also, the argument that just because we don't fully understand something, doesn't mean it's false could also be an argument creationists use. It turns into a long series of people defeating their own perspectives with their own logic. Honestly, I've moved pass that ol' argument phase. I mostly just research for my own benefit, try to put some pieces together, not to go and use it in a debate or show off. In debates, the victors walk away thinking because they won that argument, the side they support is true. Victory in arguments seem to reinforce false ideas.
Yes, we have slogans (though, old, and probably won't be going anywhere anytime soon because of the sentimental value) that would support the idea of us being a religious country (and there are indeed a lot of religious people here). Readdressing the education, I wonder what this says about our government. I doubt if the politicians (again, putting aside any ideas there wasn't any mischievous involvement on their part. I don't have any conspiracy theories, I'm just not fully trusting.) understand the inner-workings of evolution, yet it was allowed into public schools. Now, it's also a good thing, we wouldn't want politicians restricting the teachings of scientific discoveries just because they couldn't understand it. Though, my point is that this can be exploited, and I wonder if we would ever notice such an exploit...
We only get one life. "Life's purpose", "the afterlife" -these are ideas that are hanging in the balance. I think we should be careful of giving science this much control over such beliefs.
As I end this, I would say both sides needs to reevaluate their knowledge on the subject, as well as consider potential influence and bias of their respective studies (creationism or evolution). Though, who am I to tell someone what to do? I normally don't try to intrude on anyone's beliefs.
It seems we do agree on most points so excuse me if I don't type such a long answer.
As for the question...most scientists do oppose creationism being taught at schools.
About ulterior motives...I think that religious people do have more interest in undermining evolution, than the other way round. Simply because they'd lose their afterlife.
I personally don't see a reason to believe in god.
Usually religious persons argue that evolution has flaws and we have never observed a species turn into another one etc...Or that things are too complex. Or the argument of improbability. Other than pointing out flaws- that can actually be explained, they just dont accept those explanations- they have no proof for god either. So basically they claim that lack of sufficient evidence for evolution is an evidence for god. If an atheist answers that there is no evidence for god either, the answer is that the lack of evidence is not an evidence for the lack of god. But how can we know that what can fill that lack of evidence? We may find it out one day. Until then, I don't have to believe in something that isn't even necessary.
Or another answer may be that there is the Bible(Quran).
I say so what, it's written by men and inaccurate at many points.
Answer: no it's not.
So it's a vicious cycle. While god is a total dead end to me, to some people it's an obvious explanation.
Well let me warn you. Many people are just so close minded here, or immature or both, that you cannot have a decent discussion about topics like these. So this thread could get out of hand.
Who says that you need to be religious to believe in creationalism? You could simply believe that the universe or world was created by a higher form of life, or a being that ascended to another dimmension. Etc.
If you are religious, then believing the world was created in 6 24 hour days, is not illogical.
Now to address my thoughts.
I firmly believe in intelligent design. I believe God created the universe.
I am not sure however about whether I believe evolution is part of intelligent design. Or that the world was created in 6 days.
I believe Micro evolution(ie animals changing minor characteristics to adapt to the environment(such as a species of animal growing a thick coat of fur in a cold environment). But it remains the same species.
I find there are a lot of holes in the theory of macro evolution. That is to say a fish can evolve into a mammal over time, or that a animal can suddenly develop a new organ that benefits them through mutations. I am opposed to this because so far we have not found any evidence of a halfway developed organ. And so far there have not ever been useful organs that have occured through mutation(as in a primitive dolphin species suddenly has a organ for echolocation through a mutation). So far in humans alone, there are just so few people who have any kind of useful mutations. Most are mutations that actually cause harmful effects.
As for the universe being created in 6 days, I do not have a answer. Perhaps it was 6 days, perhaps the "days" are actually millions of years.
The scientific reasons why I believe in creationalism, is because there are just how complex everything is. How orderly this universe is.
I look at biology and chemistry, and just see how complex everything is and how it works together.
I would venture to guess that if you were to make a statistic probability of all this happening, it would be comparable to the earth naturally causing metals and things to all work together to create a computer, and for the electrons to assemble themselves to form a operating system. Or someone winning the lottery consecutively for 50 years in a row.
In closeing, I just want to say this. Whether you think I am just spouting BS or not, you are lying to yourself if you think humanity has even come close to understanding everything about the universe, biology, physics, climate etc.
1.) Order in the universe? The universe is anything but orderly. It's a violent and chaotic zone that rips apart the largest of stars, tears galaxies apart, whips planets into the cold and frightening blackness of space. Without this chaos, we wouldn't even be standing here right now.
2.) There is a formula that depicts the probability of habitable planets along with life on it. It's called the Drake Equation. It's not accurate, but it gives us a general idea on what we're looking for, and above all, hope to look for it. Within our galaxy alone, we can expect to find 0 planets with life forms on it to upwards of billions. Rationally, we're settling at around 2000-3000 in our galaxy alone. There could possibly be over 500 billion galaxies in the known universe. Do keep in mind that our galaxy is a baby in comparison to many out there right now.
Drake Equation:
You must be registered for see links
3.) Every planet is made up of minerals. It's not odd to find metals on a planet like that of our own. We're looking at planets currently that are made up of even more exotic minerals. There's even a possibility of a nebula that is acting like a planetary distillery. It's naturally producing ****ing alchohol.
Planet/Element Makers:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Alchohol Nebula:
You must be registered for see links
4.) Every single human born throughout history have a mutation. If you believe in some sort of X-Men crap where only a handful are born with mutations, most being birth defects, then that shows how little you know. Blue eyes for instance is a mutation.
Mutations:
You must be registered for see links
5.) Of course you will find holes in theories of evolution. That's why it's called a theory and not a fact. The goal is to put bits and pieces together, learn from what we discover. There's some theories out there that were so farfetched, so laughable, that scientists and even the general civilian criticized it's theorist on their stupidity, only to find out later that the theory was accurate. Science isn't about being correct, it's about finding the answer through both success and failure. Furthermore, there are fish currently that can survive on land for a set amount of time provided they remain moisturized (mudskippers for instance). A fish become a land animal isn't to crazy of an idea.
If you wish to believe in intelligent design, by all means, please do. The only thing I object here is your proposal on how unrealistic much of today's theories are without using a firm base of facts to back up your claims. So far from research, exploration, etc. we can estimate there are 8-70+ billion habitable planets in the Milky Way alone. Given there are 500+ billion galaxies, you're looking at 4-35+ trillion habitable planets in the known universe. To find a diamond in the rough isn't impossible, since you yourself are standing on one of those few diamonds. Believe in that, *****.
It seems we do agree on most points so excuse me if I don't type such a long answer.
As for the question...most scientists do oppose creationism being taught at schools.
About ulterior motives...I think that religious people do have more interest in undermining evolution, than the other way round. Simply because they'd lose their afterlife.
I personally don't see a reason to believe in god.
Usually religious persons argue that evolution has flaws and we have never observed a species turn into another one etc...Or that things are too complex. Or the argument of improbability. Other than pointing out flaws- that can actually be explained, they just dont accept those explanations- they have no proof for god either. So basically they claim that lack of sufficient evidence for evolution is an evidence for god. If an atheist answers that there is no evidence for god either, the answer is that the lack of evidence is not an evidence for the lack of god. But how can we know that what can fill that lack of evidence? We may find it out one day. Until then, I don't have to believe in something that isn't even necessary.
Or another answer may be that there is the Bible(Quran).
I say so what, it's written by men and inaccurate at many points.
Answer: no it's not.
So it's a vicious cycle. While god is a total dead end to me, to some people it's an obvious explanation.
That is seemingly the case. Certainly, religious faculties are the most aggressive (though the Catholic Church has officially recognized the theory of evolution; I imagine that would eventually make its way to catholic private schools, if it already hasn't). I didn't want to get into any ulterior motives... but there's a clear consequence should evolution turn out to be 100% undeniable in the future. Social Darwinism already showed the consequence of evolution (albeit a relatively weak archetype), although such ideologies didn't solely arise because of evolution, predating Charles Darwin. Though, it certainly reinforces it. It shows how mankind will bend anything to fit their ideologies. "The purging of bad genes" - "Society can only advance if we get rid of the poor, leeches, and the weak" - "The survival of the fittest"
Once evolution is recognized as fact, it's up to the scientists so start determining what are good and bad genes. What will we, the misinformed, know? There doesn't even have to be any initial coercion from the government, after a few hundred years of education, everything about evolution may be common knowledge, and humans may start to willingly gravitate toward certain classes of people, at a much higher degree than what some of us currently do. Hitler may not be able to hold a candle to the future ideals many humans may have.
Conspiracy theorist! - that's probably what some would yell after reading my concerns. However, if one is being objective, how can we not recognize this as a potential tool for social control? It's not like Hitler had mainstream science to support him. Evolution has already infiltrated schools. Kids today are becoming more influenced by their peers, and more rebellious toward their parents. Though, perhaps they've always been this influenced by their contemporaries, they're just now being influenced in a way many believe to be negative (which would be a point that actually supports my outlook; the potentially for moral decline).
If, in a few thousand years, scientists discover a "death gene" (which by the way, has been hypothesized by scientists) that controls how many years we live; shit will hit the fan. Logically, everyone won't be able afford the genetic activation/engineering, and won't mate with those that can't. And I'd doubt they'd be handing this out to average joes, because who would want to risk "degenerates" and murders living forever? Who would want the mentally handicap living forever? Those with the advancement of society in mind certainly won't. There will probably be many trial and errors before they're even successful, if they're ever successful... With immortality as the goal, it would probably be a very dark age for the more unfortunate. Even if they're not fully successful with the current generation of people, they will most likely want to observe that gene after its passed down to the next generation (after all, beneficial mutations may occur within that gene). This is probably much more effective if subjects mate with other subjects.
This don't have to be about that gene only, with 98% of our DNA remaining a mystery, the theory of evolution's effect on society remains very unclear.
And what's the only thing in the way of keeping such an ideology from dominating? Opposing ideologies. Wishful thinking tells me it would forever remain that way, but who knows...
Can you imagine the potential outcomes if the theory of evolution was a solid fact back when the blacks were slaves?
I can't stress enough, this isn't a conspiracy theory. Rather, I'm just fore-sighting the potential consequences, based on my observances of human nature, influence, and history as well as our ability/inability to learn from it.
Some may call me pessimistic or assert that I'm looking too far ahead, I'd retort by calling them naive. As if this isn't something that is intrinsically exploitable...
The government or scientists doesn't even need to have any deceitful intentions. In fact, the theory doesn't even need to possess any lies to be misused in such a way. But, godspeed if there is deception going on.
I exercise one human aptitude: Caution.
Oh, I've seen the religious arguments, and a lot of them are made because they don't want to accept opposing beliefs. It's on both sides, and its actually understandable considering human nature. I agree. It's a vicious cycle.
EDIT: Anyways, this is all just food for thought. Who knows what we may actually be supporting.
That is seemingly the case. Certainly, religious faculties are the most aggressive (though the Catholic Church has officially recognized the theory of evolution; I imagine that would eventually make its way to catholic private schools, if it already hasn't). I didn't want to get into any ulterior motives... but there's a clear consequence should evolution turn out to be 100% undeniable in the future. Social Darwinism already showed the consequence of evolution (albeit a relatively weak archetype), although such ideologies didn't solely arise because of evolution, predating Charles Darwin. Though, it certainly reinforces it. It shows how mankind will bend anything to fit their ideologies. "The purging of bad genes" - "Society can only advance if we get rid of the poor, leeches, and the weak" - "The survival of the fittest"
Once evolution is recognized as fact, it's up to the scientists so start determining what are good and bad genes. What will we, the misinformed, know? There doesn't even have to be any initial coercion from the government, after a few hundred years of education, everything about evolution may be common knowledge, and humans may start to willingly gravitate toward certain classes of people, at a much higher degree than what some of us currently do. Hitler may not be able to hold a candle to the future ideals many humans may have.
Conspiracy theorist! - that's probably what some would yell after reading my concerns. However, if one is being objective, how can we not recognize this as a potential tool for social control? It's not like Hitler had mainstream science to support him. Evolution has already infiltrated schools. Kids today are becoming more influenced by their peers, and more rebellious toward their parents. Though, perhaps they've always been this influenced by their contemporaries, they're just now being influenced in a way many believe to be negative (which would be a point that actually supports my outlook; the potentially for moral decline).
If, in a few thousand years, scientists discover a "death gene" (which by the way, has been hypothesized by scientists) that controls how many years we live; shit will hit the fan. Logically, everyone won't be able afford the genetic activation/engineering, and won't mate with those that can't. And I'd doubt they'd be handing this out to average joes, because who would want to risk "degenerates" and murders living forever? Who would want the mentally handicap living forever? Those with the advancement of society in mind certainly won't. There will probably be many trial and errors before they're even successful, if they're ever successful... With immortality as the goal, it would probably be a very dark age for the more unfortunate. Even if they're not fully successful with the current generation of people, they will most likely want to observe that gene after its passed down to the next generation (after all, beneficial mutations may occur within that gene). This is probably much more effective if subjects mate with other subjects.
This don't have to be about that gene only, with 98% of our DNA remaining a mystery, the theory of evolution's effect on society remains very unclear.
And what's the only thing in the way of keeping such an ideology from dominating? Opposing ideologies. Wishful thinking tells me it would forever remain that way, but who knows...
Can you imagine the potential outcomes if the theory of evolution was a solid fact back when the blacks were slaves?
I can't stress enough, this isn't a conspiracy theory. Rather, I'm just fore-sighting the potential consequences, based on my observances of human nature, influence, and history as well as our ability/inability to learn from it.
Some may call me pessimistic or assert that I'm looking too far ahead, I'd retort by calling them naive. As if this isn't something that is intrinsically exploitable...
The government or scientists doesn't even need to have any deceitful intentions. In fact, the theory doesn't even need to possess any lies to be misused in such a way. But, godspeed if there is deception going on.
I exercise one human aptitude: Caution.
Oh, I've seen the religious arguments, and a lot of them are made because they don't want to accept opposing beliefs. It's on both sides, and its actually understandable considering human nature. I agree. It's a vicious cycle.
EDIT: Anyways, this is all just food for thought. Who knows what we may actually be supporting.
I share your concerns more or less. Let's say that "bad" genes can be corrected (well certain traits of the child can already be chosen by parents in advance- however such medical interventions are forbidden, at least here). But who guarantees that the genes won't be re-coded to enslave people for example? Science can be used for good and bad purposes too. And there is the ethics...do we have the right to change a human being's natural genetic structure?
But. Religions have already had the chance to make the world better. And they failed. So in the end, I think what matters is the truth. I don't mind being proven wrong about evolution, as long as I'm provided with a better and well-supported explanation: but god is not such an alternative, unless somehow I get irrefutable evidence, and to be honest, I doubt I will.
Back to genetics...I find it promising that an individual's genetic map can already be examined, and future diseases can be detected. Soon we may all access this technology and live a longer life. This should be harmless.
No, I'm not. The Big Bang hinges on several unobserved entities that are only hypothesized about. Hardly a reliable backdrop for a theory many people so easily buy into.
I share your concerns more or less. Let's say that "bad" genes can be corrected (well certain traits of the child can already be chosen by parents in advance- however such medical interventions are forbidden, at least here). But who guarantees that the genes won't be re-coded to enslave people for example? Science can be used for good and bad purposes too. And there is the ethics...do we have the right to change a human being's natural genetic structure?
But. Religions have already had the chance to make the world better. And they failed. So in the end, I think what matters is the truth. I don't mind being proven wrong about evolution, as long as I'm provided with a better and well-supported explanation: but god is not such an alternative, unless somehow I get irrefutable evidence, and to be honest, I doubt I will.
Back to genetics...I find it promising that an individual's genetic map can already be examined, and future diseases can be detected. Soon we may all access this technology and live a longer life. This should be harmless.
Scary part is we may never even know it. Disguise the slavery as some kind of paradise or elevation in consciousness or thought, and many will be lining up eager to try on the shackles. An ethical problem indeed, there will probably be a great philosophical era preceding all of this (even though there somewhat is, now).
I do have a stronger inclination toward science. I can't really get any solid answers from religion. I do research them though.
It should be harmless, depending on how they must go about their operations. There are diseases today that has cures, and diseases they're getting support to try and cure. So, it'll be a bit redundant to start arguing against it, since they're already doing it. Though, if they have to mess around with the genes, then we probably get into the issue of them manipulating genes they're not supposed to.
With great power, comes great evil or good I guess.
No, I'm not. The Big Bang hinges on several unobserved entities that are only hypothesized about. Hardly a reliable backdrop for a theory many people so easily buy into.
Intriguing. This ties into what I mentioned about the funding issues, and since a lot of people don't even truly understand what these scientists are saying, it can go easily undetected. Of course the lies can go both ways, but this will be informative, nonetheless. Bookmarked (checking the references too, of course).
Intriguing. This ties into what I mentioned about the funding issues, and since a lot of people don't even truly understand what these scientists are saying, it can go easily undetected. Of course the lies can go both ways, but this will be informative, nonetheless. Bookmarked (checking the references too, of course).
Scary part is we may never even know it. Disguise the slavery as some kind of paradise or elevation in consciousness or thought, and many will be lining up eager to try on the shackles. An ethical problem indeed, there will probably be a great philosophical era preceding all of this (even though there somewhat is, now).
I do have a stronger inclination toward science. I can't really get any solid answers from religion. I do research them though.
It should be harmless, depending on how they must go about their operations. There are diseases today that has cures, and diseases they're getting support to try and cure. So, it'll be a bit redundant to start arguing against it, since they're already doing it. Though, if they have to mess around with the genes, then we probably get into the issue of them manipulating genes they're not supposed to.
With great power, comes great evil or good I guess.
Intriguing. This ties into what I mentioned about the funding issues, and since a lot of people don't even truly understand what these scientists are saying, it can go easily undetected. Of course the lies can go both ways, but this will be informative, nonetheless. Bookmarked (checking the references too, of course).
Let me just finish with the obvious: at the end of the day, people will keep believing whatever they want. There are so many possibilities and theories, and all claim to have proof. You can cherrypick whatever belief fits you the most. But tbh, god or not god, it doesn't affect my everyday life.
Yes on death note, and to me this is sad. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that is just uneducated on the subject. Basically everything you said up their is how I used to feel when I was a teenager raised in an extremely religious family. As for the original texts. I researched it all heavily. I know more about biblical texts than most people. King James Version and earlier versions, (fun fact- I am actually a descendant of king james)
You admit the numbers are astronomical but I don't think you really understand what that means
Sure winning the lottery 50 times in a row seems in possible. For the lifespan of a human it the numbers would never allow it if I only played a couple hundred times! BUT this is basic probability. It becomes much more likely if I play hundreds of trillions of years in a row! Now the odds on lottery are much less likely then the odds on many genetic mutations and there are other factors you're ignoring. The simplest thing is to tell you to research it more. The fossil record is strong evidence but it isn't nearly all they have to go on. You really need to get some legit education on it. I didn't fully understand how proven evolution was until I was in college.
In the case of evolution, it would be like I win the lottery 10 times in a row.
NOTE in a row. In a row means I am the only person to win that lottery for 10 times. If I lived for many many years I would certainly be possible for me to win the lottery 10 times. But in a row is simply much more unlikely.(also I use 10 times in a row instead of 50, as 10 times would be much more likely for this specific example.)
That would be comparable to a species beginning to develop a change that would be in the severity of changes in macro evolution. So useing my previous example that would be like a dinosaur with feathers getting loose skin or something.
That would then require the species to continue to win the lottery that just so happens to be shapeing that dinosaur into a bird. And it would have to win the lottery many many many more times before it has a basic wing. It would also at the same time be haveing to win OTHER lotteries to develop its body where its wing becomes somewhat functional.
Once it has a wing, and can glide, then that is where micro evolution can come in. This is where the animals who glide the best prosper better, and over time due to very tiny changes that occur due to a ADVANTAGE, it eventually is able to fly, and becomes the first bird.
So just a single species changed and went against the odds. It started off with useless traits, that somehow developed in a specific direction to allow it to become something else.
Then apply that to thousands, or potentially even millions of species. over the course of BILLIONS of years. NOT trillions(unless you believe in life in other galaxies, which formed long before we came about.(though it has no relevance on this discussion.))
Here is a excerpt from the wikipedia page.
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.
Approximately according to this page, 300 million years ago the first reptiles(dinosaurs) began to form.
Most everything before that, lived in the ocean.
So roughly, the evolutionary process has been going on in its relevance to us(land creatures) for 300 million years.
This is just when there are just a few land species. It becomes closer to 150-250 million years ago when the diversity really begins to pick off. Then around 66 million years ago you have that extinction event.
So we have had several hundred million years really. Not Trillions.
My parents were religious and went to church. But they were not overly religious. They never tried to push me to think a certain way. They said thousands and thousands of times that they dont care what opinions I get as long as I use my mind. For the past 10 years of my life, I have struggled to have any faith in God. I have been questioning His existance time and time again. I have uttered the words "God if you really exist then do this......" thousands of times. And I do not think I got a "response" even once.
However after spending all this time considering and thinking about it, and looking at my experiances in life, I have come to the conclusion that God exists and that Jesus died for my sins.
So ALL of my opinions are COMPLETELY of my own thoughts. They are not "because my parents raised me a certain way". The only thing my parents raised me to do besides teaching me basic morales, is they taught me to always question things around me. Always use my mind to figure things out. And of course be a typical parent and say things to raise self confidence, and the value of hard work.
They never taught me anything about evolution or creationalism. They lived in a faith based lifestyle, but they did not preach their faith much at all.
So in my faith, I am starting from not much of anything. I am only knowledgable in the New testament. It is entirely possible that over the course of my life I may turn away from my faith(though I think that will be unlikely.)
All that said maybe you are right. Maybe if I went and took a course in college about evolution, that my eyes would magically be lifted, and I would see just how likely it is. Or maybe I wouldnt. Maybe I would get kicked out of class for questioning things to much.
I know for sure, that I wont just accept something as it is just because many, or even most people think it is correct. I will accept things based on the evidence presented. And I will draw my own conclusion. If it lines up with what everyone else says, then that is fine.
Through my own search, I will gain insight into how to counter arguments of those who are skeptical. And I can help them draw the same conclusion.
I do not know what I am looking for when I question evolution. If by the time all my questioning is over and I draw a conclusion and I come right back to where I started(believing in all of evolution) then I will be more than content.
It may very well happen, that in my course of questioning, I may actually formulate a new hypothesis. That could either be replacing the process of evolution(unlikely), or actually fill in some of the gaps.
And I have actually been to college. I know how the environment is like. I know how the teachers love to teach theories as completely undisputed fact without any flaws. If I seek to get a good education, It will not be through a bunch of close minded professors who do not even question the validity of what they teach. If I seek to truly learn more about evolution, I will do so by studying the source. I will study the arguements of skeptics, and the arguements of people who have written what we know.
A true intellectual will constantly challenge what they think they know. They may believe evolution happened. But they will question it again and again. And then they may just continue to arrive at the same conclusion. But then if they find they have trouble at one time, then they must learn what it is that is causing trouble.
I question nearly everything. I might even question gravity. Does it really exist how we think it does? Is it possible that it works a different way than we think? I do not deny that there is a force that keeps us on this earth, and that keeps us in orbit, etc. But I question if our perception, and notions are what it truly is. While questioning it, until I reach a different conclusion, I operate under the assumption that it is exactly as people say it is.
I VERY VERY firmly believe that it is entirely possible for 1 person to be right on something, and millions, even billions could be wrong on it. That one person can think in a way others never considered and discover something no other has. That does not makes sense in the eyes of the rest of the world.
I am against people just becoming a collective. And I am also against idiots who question things, without actually doing any thinking.
Ex. A idiot Christian, says "evolution does not exist. It says so in the bible." He says this despite never reading in the bible himself, and unable to even direct in the general direction where it may say it in the bible. In fact he may not even have a clue about anything that Jesus taught, or that was taught in the bible. He makes a very firm claim, and uses a source, despite having no knowledge of the source. He probably makes that claim because someone else made that claim. If he is challenged at all in a debate, he cannot even formulate the actual reason why the bible may say so (if it actually did say so)(the bible from my knowledge does not actually make any references to evolution. Either pro or con.)
If he were thrown in this discussion, he would just make very vague statements.
Here is what a discussion may look like
"evolution does not exist"
"sure it does look at all this evidence"
"well that evidence is not the bible. And it must all be lies"
If he had any understanding from the actual bible, he could make statements such as
"well the reason fossils from the ocean can be found so high up, is because of noahs flood. The fossils we find of extinct animals were all animals that existed before the flood. And the 2 of their kind that was on the ark, just failed to reproduce and the species went extinct."
At least that statement had some thought, and actual references to address certain pieces of evidence. (this is just how I would immagine a creationalist would defend against evolution useing the bible. This is not what I do(at least currently)
My point here, is that I simply value the person who spends the time formulating his own opinions and theories, and doing research, than the person who just blindly goes along with what is said.
Currently, I am busy focusing my focus onto more political things. Because I view society, and the changes in our government as something that needs my focus more than speculating about where we came from. Because I am busy trying to learn what path we are going.
So what that means in relation to this discussion, is that I do not have a lot of time to go and read the books and articles of critics and supporters.
Anyways. I really have enjoyed our discussion so far, and want to thank you for making intelligent civil comments. Too many people would just make rude comments, and would not take the time to discuss this on a more intellectual level.
If you are tired of this discussion, then thats fine. I appreciate your time.
If you would like to continue this discussion, then you could start by clarifying and being more specific on why the odds for a genetic mutation that begins to fundamentally change a being(a macro evolution change) is more likely than winning the lottery, and there are other factors you claim I am ignoring, and the other evidence that supports macro evolution besides fossil records.
(and again, micro evolution is just where a being becomes more effiecient or better at doing something, and so it has a advantage over the less effecient counter part, and thus prospers more. But it still remains the same species, and does not undergo any fundamental changes. Its changes are more small. It changes existing characteristics, and does not form any new ones.
Macro evolution is where a being forms a entirely new feature. Something changes fundamentally in it. It is a long gradual process.
Here is a fictional example of macro evolution
Your response(if you choose to give it), could certainly open my mind to new things I didnt consider, and that I would have to address if I continue questioning.
I will end this post by simply saying that if I had to make a decision based on what I do know, I would certainly without a doubt say evolution is what happened. In the end after all my questioning, my conclusion does not count for squat, if I do not eventually come up with a alternative, if I settle on a conclusion that evolution did not occur.(which I have NOT).
My basic stance right now, is that evolution happened just like they said it has. However I think we are missing a piece, and that there may be some force that caused these beings to change over time. Perhaps this force, is related to how animals have their instincts, and naturally know what to avoid, and act. This is based on no facts, and is currently just speculation.
Lastly, you have no reason to feel sad for me not being fully educated on the subject. Not everyone can know everything. You shouldnt feel sad for me not being fully educated on evolution, any more than you should feel sad, that the lawyer isnt educated on heart surgery. If you think I am intelligent, then you should just be happy that I am intelligent. And you should have confidence that I will eventually find my way to the answer because I am Intelligent.(which you are certain, and I am being skeptical(though again, I do not deny it is the best fit that can be explained so far)).
Education is not going to school. Education is the pursuit for knowledge, and if you are going to have a proper education, then you will continue to seek knowledge for the rest of your life. You will never stop learning.
A saying I like to say alot. "You dont know what you dont know". So that applies to both you me, and the world. I may not know all the knowledge that a researcher who studies evolution knows. But it is entirely possible that that researcher doesnt know something about evolution, and doesnt know that they are wrong.
Since we dont know what we dont know, we can only do our best to make the best conclusions we can, based on the evidence we have found.
Since you have seen deathnote,( ) I am currently something like L and N. I am like L because I am just searching for what may fit the best. I may flip flop as more evidence comes out. I am like N, because I am working with already established investigation.
I would say darwin was probably L in this case.
I am sorry If I ever came across as condescending. I just naturally do not like arrogance. Arrogance can lead to carelessness, and carelessness can lead to ruin, and a distortion of facts.
Note: When I say "you", I'm speaking generally. I'm more or less in agreement with this post. Just trying to offer my own perspective.
Nice. I love an open mind. I'm not religious, I'm more of an agnostic that's more inclined to believe there's a higher power (more so for events in my life that I won't disclose). Be it malevolent, benevolent, or totally negligent of the life it created. It doesn't even necessarily have to be all-knowing, or possess some kind of immaculate intelligence. Doctrines, stories, and movies have painted a picture of what god is.
I find it funny, scientists, or people that claim to have a great understanding of science, say that we can never observe the divine, hence it's pointless to investigate. However, they also implicitly admit, in that same statement, that we don't know what the divine is. The definitions in dictionaries are created from our imaginations, and describes, tacitly or blatantly, that it is intrinsically unperceivable. How can we say that if we don't even know what it is? We're the ones that created that concept.
We still have so much to understand about our own conscious, especially our unconscious mind. Who knows what eye-popping, jaw-dropping observations we will make inside that unexplored world.
Who knows what avenues Quantum Mechanics have for us to explore. Who knows where the theory of multiple universes will take us (i.e. who knows what we will observe in those universes, how involved they are in our own).
Of course, this will probably takes hundreds and hundreds of years of technological advancement. So, I have to agree, what we have now are the best/only explanations of how our world works, of how science works. I just named a few to show there is scientific investigations going on that has a great degree of uncertainty. There are so many possibilities.
As for evolution in particular, I find the sudden appearance and disappearance of hair on the lanugo embryo interesting (also common on other animals and mammals, but not all. And yes, this has been used as an argument in favor of evolution). I find the similarities in the DNA of different species intriguing, and the idea that portions of the DNA (RNA) of different species can be swapped with another but still replicate in its usual manner very suggestive.
On to my next segment:
@23:50-29:45
People often say, "If there was such a thing as intelligent design, scientists would have discovered it by now". What makes you think anyone would even fund them to look for it? What makes you think they'll even risk openly expressing such a interpretation? If god isn't real, believing in him causes no serious damage as long as we're not fanatics or extremists. The view against homosexuals is still there, but I'm coming across more and more of religious people that are accepting of them. If god is man, that is to say the scientists we place so much faith in, to the point their human nature is ignored and obsolete (hence becoming god, in a sense) - then we get perilously close to creating an organization that has absolute power over our beliefs since it is in our physical world and we perceive it.
I mean really, what harm is there in questioning a few things? The man in the video (David Berlinski) said it best, "an unholy zealous". People berate followers of religion for not understanding their own doctrine, but let's be honest, how many non-scientists that believes in evolution truly understand the biological aspects and experiments? And if you're one that has a solid grasp on all of it, then just don't criticize the followers of religion, there's people among you that are ignorantly following what they read as well. I wonder how many of these scientific terms and biological components these supporters of evolution even understand when they're reading an article. I think it's at a point where scientists could describe an event in their experiment as valid, even though it's utterly impossible, and deceive a huge number of its followers.
This guy caught my interest (a relatively new approach to evolution, the first article published was around January I believe):
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
He's investigating evolution from a Physics standpoint (and he very much supports evolution). I'm going to keep an eye on his research, but anyways...
"How can Morowitz and other law proponents just dispense with Darwin at a time when doubting him has cost many scientists their jobs?It's because law proponents make clear that their alternative is as strictly naturalistic as the chance one. Because they are not arguing that humans were designed for a purpose, they can even argue, without generating career-limiting controversy, that intelligent life -- as opposed to life generally -- probably evolved only once, on this planet: "It required a kind of industrial revolution in terms of energy production," says one. Splitting the difference between law and chance, origin-of-life researcher Nick Lane thinks that life of some kind would probably emerge on any wet, rocky planet, but that "complex" life forms are a matter of chance."
^That's in the last article. His approach is that life isn't random, that it's governed by natural laws (as you can see in the other articles). Of course, they must be careful, because there's a thin line between "life being developed by natural laws" and "life being designed". As you can see, practitioners of this law theory are being/have been careful, their funding and reputation is on the line here.
Why does mainstream science supports only evolution and not any other alternative, why haven't any other alternative surfaced as of yet?
This is the part where we insert the LOTR theme: One does not simply support an alternative to evolution.
I feel like there's a lot of "business" that goes on in science that a lot of people overlook. We don't pay attention to the monetary aspect of science and the influence it has on its research. I'm still looking into that, myself.
Controlling the extent and designation of scientific research is probably the most strategical move one can make as far as influencing beliefs are concerned. Especially when it comes to one's education.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to exaggerate this, I just highly recommend taking this into consideration when pondering about the lack of evidence supporting any kind of alternate theory, how come there's a lack of investigation (people can't just pull money out of nowhere and fund all the expensive equipment they will need - they will need someone to fund them), as well as "how come there's so much evidence" that supports evolution.
I find the evolution theory an intriguing explanation, but it could also be just a piece of a large puzzle. I look forward to seeing what Jeremy England's Physics approach brings to the table. Especially when he tests it on living organisms.
I am sorry to say I do not have time at this moment to read your response in full. However I wanted to make this comment to say that I plan on reading it and responding with my opinion when I get a chance. From what I glanced from it, it seems to be very interesting.
Edit: I read it. It was just like I thought. It was very interesting. Its getting late where I am, and I would like to respond in a seperate post to address individual points. Thanks for this post!
(also I apologize for the text wall abomination above. I will come back and format it better)
In the case of evolution, it would be like I win the lottery 10 times in a row.
NOTE in a row. In a row means I am the only person to win that lottery for 10 times. If I lived for many many years I would certainly be possible for me to win the lottery 10 times. But in a row is simply much more unlikely.(also I use 10 times in a row instead of 50, as 10 times would be much more likely for this specific example.)
That would be comparable to a species beginning to develop a change that would be in the severity of changes in macro evolution. So useing my previous example that would be like a dinosaur with feathers getting loose skin or something.
That would then require the species to continue to win the lottery that just so happens to be shapeing that dinosaur into a bird. And it would have to win the lottery many many many more times before it has a basic wing. It would also at the same time be haveing to win OTHER lotteries to develop its body where its wing becomes somewhat functional.
Once it has a wing, and can glide, then that is where micro evolution can come in. This is where the animals who glide the best prosper better, and over time due to very tiny changes that occur due to a ADVANTAGE, it eventually is able to fly, and becomes the first bird.
So just a single species changed and went against the odds. It started off with useless traits, that somehow developed in a specific direction to allow it to become something else.
Then apply that to thousands, or potentially even millions of species. over the course of BILLIONS of years. NOT trillions(unless you believe in life in other galaxies, which formed long before we came about.(though it has no relevance on this discussion.))
Here is a excerpt from the wikipedia page.
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.
Approximately according to this page, 300 million years ago the first reptiles(dinosaurs) began to form.
Most everything before that, lived in the ocean.
So roughly, the evolutionary process has been going on in its relevance to us(land creatures) for 300 million years.
This is just when there are just a few land species. It becomes closer to 150-250 million years ago when the diversity really begins to pick off. Then around 66 million years ago you have that extinction event.
So we have had several hundred million years really. Not Trillions.
My parents were religious and went to church. But they were not overly religious. They never tried to push me to think a certain way. They said thousands and thousands of times that they dont care what opinions I get as long as I use my mind. For the past 10 years of my life, I have struggled to have any faith in God. I have been questioning His existance time and time again. I have uttered the words "God if you really exist then do this......" thousands of times. And I do not think I got a "response" even once.
However after spending all this time considering and thinking about it, and looking at my experiances in life, I have come to the conclusion that God exists and that Jesus died for my sins.
So ALL of my opinions are COMPLETELY of my own thoughts. They are not "because my parents raised me a certain way". The only thing my parents raised me to do besides teaching me basic morales, is they taught me to always question things around me. Always use my mind to figure things out. And of course be a typical parent and say things to raise self confidence, and the value of hard work.
They never taught me anything about evolution or creationalism. They lived in a faith based lifestyle, but they did not preach their faith much at all.
So in my faith, I am starting from not much of anything. I am only knowledgable in the New testament. It is entirely possible that over the course of my life I may turn away from my faith(though I think that will be unlikely.)
All that said maybe you are right. Maybe if I went and took a course in college about evolution, that my eyes would magically be lifted, and I would see just how likely it is. Or maybe I wouldnt. Maybe I would get kicked out of class for questioning things to much.
I know for sure, that I wont just accept something as it is just because many, or even most people think it is correct. I will accept things based on the evidence presented. And I will draw my own conclusion. If it lines up with what everyone else says, then that is fine.
Through my own search, I will gain insight into how to counter arguments of those who are skeptical. And I can help them draw the same conclusion.
I do not know what I am looking for when I question evolution. If by the time all my questioning is over and I draw a conclusion and I come right back to where I started(believing in all of evolution) then I will be more than content.
It may very well happen, that in my course of questioning, I may actually formulate a new hypothesis. That could either be replacing the process of evolution(unlikely), or actually fill in some of the gaps.
And I have actually been to college. I know how the environment is like. I know how the teachers love to teach theories as completely undisputed fact without any flaws. If I seek to get a good education, It will not be through a bunch of close minded professors who do not even question the validity of what they teach. If I seek to truly learn more about evolution, I will do so by studying the source. I will study the arguements of skeptics, and the arguements of people who have written what we know.
A true intellectual will constantly challenge what they think they know. They may believe evolution happened. But they will question it again and again. And then they may just continue to arrive at the same conclusion. But then if they find they have trouble at one time, then they must learn what it is that is causing trouble.
I question nearly everything. I might even question gravity. Does it really exist how we think it does? Is it possible that it works a different way than we think? I do not deny that there is a force that keeps us on this earth, and that keeps us in orbit, etc. But I question if our perception, and notions are what it truly is. While questioning it, until I reach a different conclusion, I operate under the assumption that it is exactly as people say it is.
I VERY VERY firmly believe that it is entirely possible for 1 person to be right on something, and millions, even billions could be wrong on it. That one person can think in a way others never considered and discover something no other has. That does not makes sense in the eyes of the rest of the world.
I am against people just becoming a collective. And I am also against idiots who question things, without actually doing any thinking.
Ex. A idiot Christian, says "evolution does not exist. It says so in the bible." He says this despite never reading in the bible himself, and unable to even direct in the general direction where it may say it in the bible. In fact he may not even have a clue about anything that Jesus taught, or that was taught in the bible. He makes a very firm claim, and uses a source, despite having no knowledge of the source. He probably makes that claim because someone else made that claim. If he is challenged at all in a debate, he cannot even formulate the actual reason why the bible may say so (if it actually did say so)(the bible from my knowledge does not actually make any references to evolution. Either pro or con.)
If he were thrown in this discussion, he would just make very vague statements.
Here is what a discussion may look like
"evolution does not exist"
"sure it does look at all this evidence"
"well that evidence is not the bible. And it must all be lies"
If he had any understanding from the actual bible, he could make statements such as
"well the reason fossils from the ocean can be found so high up, is because of noahs flood. The fossils we find of extinct animals were all animals that existed before the flood. And the 2 of their kind that was on the ark, just failed to reproduce and the species went extinct."
At least that statement had some thought, and actual references to address certain pieces of evidence. (this is just how I would immagine a creationalist would defend against evolution useing the bible. This is not what I do(at least currently)
My point here, is that I simply value the person who spends the time formulating his own opinions and theories, and doing research, than the person who just blindly goes along with what is said.
Currently, I am busy focusing my focus onto more political things. Because I view society, and the changes in our government as something that needs my focus more than speculating about where we came from. Because I am busy trying to learn what path we are going.
So what that means in relation to this discussion, is that I do not have a lot of time to go and read the books and articles of critics and supporters.
Anyways. I really have enjoyed our discussion so far, and want to thank you for making intelligent civil comments. Too many people would just make rude comments, and would not take the time to discuss this on a more intellectual level.
If you are tired of this discussion, then thats fine. I appreciate your time.
If you would like to continue this discussion, then you could start by clarifying and being more specific on why the odds for a genetic mutation that begins to fundamentally change a being(a macro evolution change) is more likely than winning the lottery, and there are other factors you claim I am ignoring, and the other evidence that supports macro evolution besides fossil records.
(and again, micro evolution is just where a being becomes more effiecient or better at doing something, and so it has a advantage over the less effecient counter part, and thus prospers more. But it still remains the same species, and does not undergo any fundamental changes. Its changes are more small. It changes existing characteristics, and does not form any new ones.
Macro evolution is where a being forms a entirely new feature. Something changes fundamentally in it. It is a long gradual process.
Here is a fictional example of macro evolution
Your response(if you choose to give it), could certainly open my mind to new things I didnt consider, and that I would have to address if I continue questioning.
I will end this post by simply saying that if I had to make a decision based on what I do know, I would certainly without a doubt say evolution is what happened. In the end after all my questioning, my conclusion does not count for squat, if I do not eventually come up with a alternative, if I settle on a conclusion that evolution did not occur.(which I have NOT).
My basic stance right now, is that evolution happened just like they said it has. However I think we are missing a piece, and that there may be some force that caused these beings to change over time. Perhaps this force, is related to how animals have their instincts, and naturally know what to avoid, and act. This is based on no facts, and is currently just speculation.
Lastly, you have no reason to feel sad for me not being fully educated on the subject. Not everyone can know everything. You shouldnt feel sad for me not being fully educated on evolution, any more than you should feel sad, that the lawyer isnt educated on heart surgery. If you think I am intelligent, then you should just be happy that I am intelligent. And you should have confidence that I will eventually find my way to the answer because I am Intelligent.(which you are certain, and I am being skeptical(though again, I do not deny it is the best fit that can be explained so far)).
Education is not going to school. Education is the pursuit for knowledge, and if you are going to have a proper education, then you will continue to seek knowledge for the rest of your life. You will never stop learning.
A saying I like to say alot. "You dont know what you dont know". So that applies to both you me, and the world. I may not know all the knowledge that a researcher who studies evolution knows. But it is entirely possible that that researcher doesnt know something about evolution, and doesnt know that they are wrong.
Since we dont know what we dont know, we can only do our best to make the best conclusions we can, based on the evidence we have found.
Since you have seen deathnote,( ) I am currently something like L and N. I am like L because I am just searching for what may fit the best. I may flip flop as more evidence comes out. I am like N, because I am working with already established investigation.
I would say darwin was probably L in this case.
I am sorry If I ever came across as condescending. I just naturally do not like arrogance. Arrogance can lead to carelessness, and carelessness can lead to ruin, and a distortion of facts.
I am sorry to say I do not have time at this moment to read your response in full. However I wanted to make this comment to say that I plan on reading it and responding with my opinion when I get a chance. From what I glanced from it, it seems to be very interesting.
Edit: I read it. It was just like I thought. It was very interesting. Its getting late where I am, and I would like to respond in a seperate post to address individual points. Thanks for this post!
(also I apologize for the text wall abomination above. I will come back and format it better)
With all that effort you put into posting this, you could have just googled "was there enough time for evolution?" and read the first article that pops up.
I'm not trying to come across as arrogant when I say this but I find it pretty ridiculous that people think there is a debate here. To me this is about as much a debate as "does 2+2=4 or does 2+2=22". It's just math and laws of nature. There really is no debate. 2+2 will always =4 no matter how much you may want to believe it's really 22.
I hate to say it but I'm not going to read an ocean of text based on incomplete personal opinions which developement can only possibly come from a lack of proper information on the subject combined with biased religious views. As someone who came from that point of view it just reminds me of how ignorant and dumb I was when I was younger. Then it makes me feel old. If rather not feel old today. I'm sure a few years from now, assuming you keep to your word and continue learning, you will probably have a similar thought to this one day. When that day comes dig this post out of the archives and reply to it. Until then, keep reading and question what you've learned that made you believe evolution might not be real.
Creationism is far from my beliefs. I never told people what I truly believed because I wanted to believe that I believed in things like creationism and when I was a kid, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. It's impossible for me to believe in things that sound so magical.
) I am currently something like L and N. I am like L because I am just searching for what may fit the best. I may flip flop as more evidence comes out. I am like N, because I am working with already established investigation.
