|
Post by InuYasha on Mar 3, 2006 17:30:01 GMT -5
don't care because the only thing I believe in is me besides I accept Charles Darwin's theory of evolution not the bible's adam and eve You know I really hate it when people misinterpret Darwin. His Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with apes, evolving into a newer species, etc. His theory is about adaptation to ones environment. Whoever adapts the best to an environment is the best species. That's what he meant. If it wasn't for his cousin, and the dumbass people who not only misinterpreted what he said, but also created the BS we now know as social Darwinism, we wouldn't have this problem that we have today. God I hate stupid people who love to jump the gun on everything. >___>
|
|
|
Post by Tive on Mar 3, 2006 18:15:40 GMT -5
I do, but why is harder to say, since I don't remember not believing, mostly. (Which isn't to say I haven't had doubts about whether or not He exists.) After believing, I saw things that sort of 'proved' it to my satisfaction, but those 'proofs' were so personal that they wouldn't make sense to anyone else, especially a sceptic, I think. As far as evolution goes, ever hear the one about *some* people having been descended from apes? Seriously, though, all evolution really is, is an explanation of the logical consequences of survival-of-the-fittest, and what that results in in a population over time...
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark on Mar 3, 2006 19:19:25 GMT -5
I don't know......
|
|
|
Post by Coki-kun on Mar 3, 2006 19:23:45 GMT -5
don't care because the only thing I believe in is me besides I accept Charles Darwin's theory of evolution not the bible's adam and eve You know I really hate it when people misinterpret Darwin. His Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with apes, evolving into a newer species, etc. His theory is about adaptation to ones environment. Whoever adapts the best to an environment is the best species. That's what he meant. If it wasn't for his cousin, and the dumbass people who not only misinterpreted what he said, but also created the BS we now know as social Darwinism, we wouldn't have this problem that we have today. God I hate stupid people who love to jump the gun on everything. >___> All Iam saying is that I don't care about God.
|
|
|
Post by Kôkaku Kidôtai Tantei on Mar 4, 2006 2:07:57 GMT -5
Ok, I have a question... If evalution exist..How do we know that there was an evalution to begin with? (I'm still tying to get more edvidance for my case)
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Mar 4, 2006 3:30:08 GMT -5
Misztina: Please do find it, I'm interested. Tiva: Even if its personal, I'd also like to hear it.
Angie: "No questions to be asked"? Kinda ambiguous. Was that saying "I have unquestioning faith" or "Nobody should question god's existance"?
Zato: Easier said than done. You're kinda asking someone to sum up entire multidicipinary fields of scientific study. We've got multiple courses at college devoted exclusively to evoutionary theory. But here's the simplest and most convincing argument I've ever heard:
If there is no such thing as evolution, nobody would ever need the flu shot more than once. Immunization protects from a specific virus forever, so if the influenza virus never changed (aka evolved), once would last a lifetime.
If you then think "Well, what about the chicken pox?", our body's response to pox is far less specific than influenza. It's the same reason that milkmaids getting cowpox never got smallpox.
|
|
|
Post by Kôkaku Kidôtai Tantei on Mar 4, 2006 3:53:39 GMT -5
Misztina: Please do find it, I'm interested. Tiva: Even if its personal, I'd also like to hear it. Angie: "No questions to be asked"? Kinda ambiguous. Was that saying "I have unquestioning faith" or "Nobody should question god's existance"? Zato: Easier said than done. You're kinda asking someone to sum up entire multidicipinary fields of scientific study. We've got multiple courses at college devoted exclusively to evoutionary theory. But here's the simplest and most convincing argument I've ever heard: If there is no such thing as evolution, nobody would ever need the flu shot more than once. Immunization protects from a specific virus forever, so if the influenza virus never changed (aka evolved), once would last a lifetime. If you then think "Well, what about the chicken pox?", our body's response to pox is far less specific than influenza. It's the same reason that milkmaids getting cowpox never got smallpox. Well, Why have Theories instead of one simple answer?
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Mar 4, 2006 4:13:55 GMT -5
It's all about definition. Something is not a scientific law unless its 100% provable in every single instance without a shadow of a doubt. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory has very strong evidence backing it up. A hypothesis is an educated guess (using observation and data) of how a system works. A prediction is what the likely outcome is if the hypothesis is right. If the hypothesis is never wrong in multiple tests, especially different types of tests, it becomes a theory. Only something undeniable at all is a law. For example, it's no longer a theory that the earth revolves around the sun, but Copernicus' discovery was just a theory. It didnt officially become proof until we sent space probes out and actually watched it happen. DNA on the other hand is still just a theory despite overwhelming evidence and acceptance by the scientific community. Dont be confused, just because something is called a theory doesnt mean it has weak proof.
Unless you mean that why isnt there one simple proof. Since we do not have the ability to watch all of history, especially at the genetic level, in fast motion, nor do we have the ability to disprove what appears to be random isnt actually controlled (see intelligent design), you cant say its 100% proven. Instead, we rely on multiple different sources of strong but not absolute proof. Fossil records of gradual change, mutating diseases, vestigal organs, similarity of genetic code and various well-conserved proteins like RNAP, and convergent evolution (ideal solutions, bats and birds evolved seperately but can both fly) are some of the more commonly cited forms of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Kôkaku Kidôtai Tantei on Mar 4, 2006 4:21:52 GMT -5
It's all about definition. Something is not a scientific law unless its 100% provable in every single instance without a shadow of a doubt. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory has very strong evidence backing it up. A hypothesis is an educated guess (using observation and data) of how a system works. A prediction is what the likely outcome is if the hypothesis is right. If the hypothesis is never wrong in multiple tests, especially different types of tests, it becomes a theory. Only something undeniable at all is a law. For example, it's no longer a theory that the earth revolves around the sun, but Copernicus' discovery was just a theory. It didnt officially become proof until we sent space probes out and actually watched it happen. DNA on the other hand is still just a theory despite overwhelming evidence and acceptance by the scientific community. Dont be confused, just because something is called a theory doesnt mean it has weak proof. Unless you mean that why isnt there one simple proof. Since we do not have the ability to watch all of history, especially at the genetic level, in fast motion, nor do we have the ability to disprove what appears to be random isnt actually controlled (see intelligent design), you cant say its 100% proven. Instead, we rely on multiple different sources of strong but not absolute proof. Fossil records of gradual change, mutating diseases, vestigal organs, similarity of genetic code and various well-conserved proteins like RNAP, and convergent evolution (ideal solutions, bats and birds evolved seperately but can both fly) are some of the more commonly cited forms of evidence. But theories change everytime right? How can we trust them?
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Mar 4, 2006 4:33:00 GMT -5
Theories do sometimes change. Though you're more likely to hear about the ones that do than the ones that dont. However, dont misinterpret. Theories are often revised, not discarded. For example, atomic theory. We thought atoms were teh basic building blocks. They are. However, they are made of smaller things. Protons, neutrons and electrons. They're held together by the strong nuclear force, and the number of protons controls the atom. However, atoms remainined the basic elements of molecules. Then we discovered that protons and neutrons are actually made up of quarks and gluons. However, proton count still decided atom type. So while it got revised, what was discovered before wasnt really discarded. Just revised to add more detail. It's much like trying to draw a curved line. The more points you add, the more specific the drawing gets. The previous drawing wasnt so much wrong as incomplete. Besides, there havent really been that many famous theory discards since the 1950s. Before, all scientists really had were their brains, some chemicals, microscopes, and telescopes. Now with so much more advanced technology, we're able to discover things we never could before. Is it possible that something major will be completely overturned? I cant rule out the possibility. But its far more likely that as technology progresses, we'll simply revise, not discard. As for the original topic, evolution and god arent totally incompatable. Intelligent design is the belief that God controls evolution. However, that is not sound science, as without evidence that God controls or does not control, it's no more than opinion. A hypothesis perhaps, but not a theory. Remember, theories have evidence pointing one way or the other. So while are free to believe in intelligent design, its wrong to label it science and try to get it taught in school. There's evidence that genetic mutations cause change. There's evidence that the change APPEARS random. There's no evidence as to whether or not the randomness is actually controlled. For more science than I'm in the mood to talk about, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionand for the most accepted modern view of evolution (aka the short version) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
|
|
|
Post by hattori on Mar 4, 2006 5:16:23 GMT -5
Evolution comes form a theory made by man. Before they belived that the earth was flat, now they say that We come from Apes. If thats so shouldn't the apes evolve into man. And If there was a "Big Bang" where did it came from? I could go if you want me to. Oh, I'm sooo agree with u! I believe in God. But I dont say I dont believe in evolution or Darwins theory. All I'm saying is that God CREATED that way. ( If its like that ) I dont really care HOW God intended it, I just know by myself that it is a God. Howerer, if u want evidence, hm. Look around u! The nature, okay I may could believe that it was made without a a god.... But The humans?! The body is one thing, but our soul, our spirit... How could we get that, if it's not planned??? Thats proof enough for me. ^-^ Hope I didn't over react, I'm just so in to this kind of conversations.
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Mar 4, 2006 6:00:20 GMT -5
No, no overreacting, just perfect.
But I'd like to know how people know a soul exists, besides their feelings. Nor did I ever get the "Look around. There's nature. God exists." argument. Maybe I've just been too inundated with science. I see beauty in the world, but I see it by knowing how it works. A sunrise is more beautiful when you realize that its caused by internal fusion in the sun caused by excessive gravity, as well as coloration caused by skattering in the upper atmosphere due to oxygen, nitrogen, and volcanic dust.
|
|
|
Post by Tive on Mar 4, 2006 10:16:20 GMT -5
Okay, after thinking about some of the posts in this thread, I realized something: some of the people are confusing science with faith. To perhaps over-simplify it, but science basically deals with what can be "seen". Faith is about belief. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen." Science is something you can know (for some values of 'know' ), belief is something you don't know for sure, because if you did, it would be knowing, not faith. As Mac said, belief and faith do not "have to" conflict. Although it is true that my faith does cause me to question whether certain parts of "the" evolution theory are true. But the bits about a species evolving after it has come into being, I have no doubts whatsoever about that, because it's only logical.
|
|
|
Post by Tive on Mar 4, 2006 10:28:36 GMT -5
Oh, and about the 'proofs' that I consider being good enough for me in regard to whether or not God exists, well... Here's one for you: do you know about all the constants that need to be more or less exactly the value they are now for life as we know it to exist? The one I remember best is how the orbit of the Earth is just right... If the Earth was 1% of an AU closer to the sun, or 5% further away from it, life as we know it couldn't exist. There's more of such constants, but that's just one of the many that "happens" to be just right for us to exist...
That's a rather weak 'proof', isn't it? But the point is not how weak it is, but how it makes sense for *me*, after I believed that God exists. But because I do, I *can* see that as a proof.
Science says that the Earth came into being a certain number of millions of years ago, the Bible says that it was about 6 thousand years ago. Well, I wasn't alive either 4 million years ago, nor 6000 years ago, so why would it matter to me how conditions were then exactly? I am alive *now*, and to me how we all got here isn't as important as believing that our existence was wanted by God, and that He led us into being in this 'now'.
|
|
|
Post by Kôkaku Kidôtai Tantei on Mar 4, 2006 10:52:10 GMT -5
Hattori:Thank you Tive:good point
|
|