Originally posted by RJHindsThere's also this thing called The theory of gravity, are you willing to chuck yourself off a tall building to see if it's 'just a theory'?
To twhitehead:
Wow! Chickens don't have snake children!
We really established something there.
A big breakthrough. Huh?
So much for the humor, I'll try to be serious
now. We cna discuss this and maybe we will
get somewhere and maybe not. However, it
is my gut feeling that since we have such
opposite belief systems it will be extremely
diffic ...[text shortened]...
can't think of any better way to explain it.
RJHinds
RJHinds
I'll run through how evolution works with you and we'll see where we get to before we disagree.
You up for it?
Originally posted by RJHindsBut we are not really discussing a belief system or religious views. My atheism has nothing to do with evolution. As I already pointed out, the vast majority of Christians accept evolution as fact and a significant proportion of the scientists involved in studying it and enhancing our knowledge of it are Christians - even if they aren't your kind of Christian, they are not atheist.
We cna discuss this and maybe we will
get somewhere and maybe not. However, it
is my gut feeling that since we have such
opposite belief systems it will be extremely
difficult for us to agree that evolution is either
fact or fiction.
As you know I put it in the category of science fiction.
But it is not clear why. OK I know you see it as in conflict with your beliefs, but that is no reason to conclude that the scientist who study it are all delusional. It is as much a part of science as any other well known theory. To call it science fiction is rather uncalled for.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, that is why it
is called the "theory of evolution ," instead of
the "law of evolution".
That is simply not true. Not only has it been proven, but that is not what the terms 'Theory' and 'Law' mean when used in science. You really need to realize that you cannot learn anything reliable about science from creationist websites. They are full of people who deliberately lie to try and make evolution look bad and apparently have no scruples whatsoever.
I don't believe it will ever be proven because I think it is false and, as you
pointed out earlier, a work of satan.
Why do you think it is a work of Satan? Are geology and astronomy and various other disciplines that lead to the same conclusions also works of Satan? Did you conclude that on your own, or did you get it off some creationist website or other creationists? It just seems like going a bit too far.
The rodent "kind" would include rats, mice, hamsters, beavers and animals of
that "kind".
So there really is no hard and fast rule. I mean how can one really know if two animals are the same 'kind'? If for one would never have included beavers with rats. Science has found ways to group animals based on their characteristics and also on what we believe are their relationships, but the categories used in science do not match the ones you are using.
I hope that is a simple enough explanation because I
can't think of any better way to explain it.
I am just not sure it is useful. If I prove that a bird could evolve into something I believe is not a bird, you will just say 'but it is still bird kind'. So your claim ends up being circular (and therefore meaningless).
I really have no problem with you not believing The Theory of Evolution is mistaken because the Bible claims something else. I do have a problem when you take it a step further and:
1. Make false claims to discredit evolution. This may not be done knowingly, but if you don't know enough about the subject you should probably refrain from passing on claims you have heard from other people.
2. Start believing that scientists are trying to deceive you because they are atheist or that the theory is the work of Satan.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThis pretty much sums it up:
To Proper Knob:
The last I heard that had become the
law of gravity because it has been proven.
Where did you get the idea it was still
just a theory?
RJHinds
HYPOTHESES are proposed explanations for the causes of phenomena. These explanations must be objective. They must either be testable by experimentation or make predictions that can be tested. They must be open to potential refutation and revision.
THEORIES are hypotheses that have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed (through experiments designed to disprove them) and so well established that new evidence is not likely to contradict them. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is the (very large) degree of confidence we have in its validity and power to explain.
LAWS are statements that describe invariable behavior of things in the natural world. Laws are like predictions that have been confirmed with such uniformity that their contradiction would seem miraculous until new theories are produced to explain the deviation.
Now, as for gravity, there is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation that describes the attraction between all bodies with mass, and there is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which explains gravity and, in fact, supercedes the Law of Universal Gravitation in it's scope.
So there is a Law of Gravity, and there is a theory that explains it.
Likewise, there is I suppose a law that the form of biological organisms changes over time. Then there is the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection that explains it.
Both theories (General Relativity and Evolution through Natural Selection) have a similar (huge) amount of evidence supporting them.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf you accept Proper Knob's offer, I think everyone else should step back for a time and just watch to allow the two of you to discuss.
There's also this thing called The theory of gravity, are you willing to chuck yourself off a tall building to see if it's 'just a theory'?
I'll run through how evolution works with you and we'll see where we get to before we disagree.
You up for it?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by RJHindsI'll take this one step at a time to find out where the discussion will break down. I'm going to use dogs as an example.
To Proper Knob:
Yes, give me the lesson. I will at least
read.
RJHinds
Do you accept that dogs have a genome? A genome is the entirety of an organisms hereditary information, which for a dog will be coded in DNA.
To Penguin:
Well, at least the Catholic Chruch waters down
the theory by putting God in there. But I still
believe you are both wrong. I hope I don't
offend anyone, but I remember when there
were many white people who were glad to
believe in evolution because to them it proved
they were more evolved than black people.
They thought this made them superior and
probably made them feel less quilty for treating
them so bad. They believed man evolved from
the apes and the black man looked closer to the
ape with his black skin so he became the least
evolved man. A very fair white person will get
skin burn from the hot sun very quickly and
would need medication for skin burn if they were to
stay out in the sun with little clothing all day
like the African natives do all the time. The dark
skin somehow gives protection from the sun.
I don't think the color of the skin has anything to
do with evolution. I believe it due to adaptation.
RJHinds
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsRather than respond to this, I would prefer to step back as I suggested and let Proper Knob try to steer a logical path without distracting you with side arguments.
To Penguin:
Well, at least the Catholic Chruch waters down
the theory by putting God in there. But I still
believe you are both wrong. I hope I don't
offend anyone, but I remember when there
were many white people who were glad to
believe in evolution because to them it proved
they were more evolved than black people.
They thought this made them or of the skin has anything to
do with evolution. I believe it due to adaptation.
RJHinds
If you want me to get back to you on it after your conversation with PK has finished, I will be happy to oblige.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by black beetleJesus
Open to that, which
Is not Divine Is not mundane Cannot be described by words Cannot be pointed by examples Has never been born Has never ceased Has never been liberated Has never been deluded Has never existed Has never been nonexistent Has no limits at all Does not fall into any kind of category Cannot be worse because of Samsara Cannot be better by means of Nirvana
😵
Originally posted by RJHindsTroll.
To josephw:
Are you on the right thread, we were discussing
evolution? But since you are here could you answer
an old question? I'm sure you have heard it before.
Be honest and don't get crazy with me for this is not
a joke.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
RJHinds