As for being taught in schools, evolution is not religious, it is a scientific theory, why the hell would it be unacceptable to teach it in schools? Hell, my catholic school (turned me into an agnostic, true story) taught us evolution back in 2nd grade.
There is no reason for evolution not to be taught in schools, but there is a reason creationism is not taught in schools.
Agree'd. I am a Christian, and I am a Theistic Evolutionist. It doesn't have much against it, so why not teach it?
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/30/2010
Posts:
660
Member Details
This thread was pretentious enough without dredging up this facepalm generating topic. :sleep.gif:
You know there's already a 440+ page thread in General OT that primarily "discusses" this, right?
I remember taking biology tests and despite knowing enough that almost the entire class asked me for help when they needed it, the teacher came up with lame reasons to fail me. One was not crossing a t. It was because I spoke up about what I believed.
Somehow I doubt this. Even so, your teacher being unfair has nothing to do with the veracity of the material covered.
This thread was pretentious enough without dredging up this facepalm generating topic. :sleep.gif:
You know there's already a 440+ page thread in General OT that primarily "discusses" this, right?
I agree with you but you cant have a debate without people to debate and this topic tends to generate them so what the hell, why not? People want to see the one page rant so I am gonna work on a short version of it. Ill give a quick overview of the argument with no evidence at the moment. I will state now that my biggest problem with the theory isnt so much science based, its conduct based.
So the basis of the argument, bad conduct via "religious orientation" motives. Psychological evidence to back this up. Ye olde ooparts argument. Genetic change limitations. Separation of the ideas of evolution and adaptation. etc
Oh random funny argument I once heard. People are no longer homo sapiens, we have evolved past it! I wish I could find that argument again I would link to it here but I don't remember where it is. Obviously not provided by a professional but it was funny to see it.
Yeah, try to leave the whole conduct thing out of it. The conduct of people who are espousing a theory or set of beliefs in no way affects the truth value of that theory or set of beliefs. Whether or not you agree with a scientific theory should be based purely upon how closely it matches reality. If you disagree with a theory for any other reason, then you're simply fooling yourself.
Actually, I was wondering, if it's possible to install OSX on a rig built for Windows?
I know that's a stupid question, but I want a computer running dual-booted Windows and OSX, as the general problem with Macs, are the hardware. That's about it.
Don't hate me for my question(even though there haven't seemed to appear any haters here yet)
I just generally really like OSX, but I want to play my games, and I want to play them with my semi-awesome rig, not a Mac.
Yes.
Google "hackintosh", there are instructions depending on your hardware.
Long as it doesn't interfere with my beliefs, I fully believe the theory of evolution (I'm catholic, that would be my beliefs). This topic should die. Take it into general off topic, they like to debate stuff like this more.
Yeah, try to leave the whole conduct thing out of it. The conduct of people who are espousing a theory or set of beliefs in no way affects the truth value of that theory or set of beliefs. Whether or not you agree with a scientific theory should be based purely upon how closely it matches reality. If you disagree with a theory for any other reason, then you're simply fooling yourself.
I have been sick for the past week or so after I posted this, I will get around to the entire page argument if I feel up to it today but for now I will explain the conduct thing.
Ok I will keep this short. What I don't like about the conduct of most evolutionary biologists is the heavy bias and promotion of evolution. Yes I know how retarded that sounds. Let me explain. I will use my least favorite evolutionary biologist as an example. Richard Dawkins, I hate his accent, honestly. But going beyond that he tends to provide evidence for evolution with claims like "the god of the Hebrew bible is a genocidal, homophobic madman" or something similar to that. He also frequently badmouths Jewish people. And Christians but mostly Jewish people. Well the Jewish people tend to take most of it from him. I also know plenty of evolutionary biologists who think Dawkins is a **** as well. However, there are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are decent scientists. I was once watching something on animal planet or discovery, I cant remember. Anyway they had an evolutionary biologist, as he claimed to be, talking about skunks. I tend to count how many times evolution or the theory of evolution as we see it today, starting with the big bang, appears in shows on discovery and animal planet, etc. It is actually quite disturbing how frequently it is mentioned. These shows go out of there way to mention it. It was the same with the show about the skunk. The evolutionary biologist was talking about his work with skunks and how they work from a biological perspective. He mentioned evolution only once when talking about how skunk spar came from marking territory. He had about half of the show. During the rest of the show, the narrator mentioned evolution 6 or 7 times. If the skunk evolved or was created doesn't change the way it lives or what it does, but it was added heavily anyway. And the evolutionary biologist knew much about skunk biology. He had some great insights and did some great work. ****'s, I mean Richard's, greatest work is the god delusion. Basically badmouthing anyone who disagrees with him.
So why is it important that conduct be considered. Plenty of other people promote their opinions. Well it is because of things like the haeckel diagrams. There are people today who still believe fetuses have gill slits. They aren't gill slits damn it, they are lumps that form lymph nodes. This is why conduct is important. Because if this theory is blindly accepted and everything else is ignored and repressed, and those who don't believe it are harassed. Then what you have is religious persecution. And you have a paradigm that people are afraid to stand against. We have this already. There are some afraid of speaking up against the paradigm. And those that do, fall. If you don't believe me, see Ben Stein's "expelled" and reread about what happened when I spoke up against the paradigm while being a student. The study some biology. And read some history. Scientists are, by nature, highly religious. That is to say, they are greatly involved in their religious orientation. That includes the theory of evolution. They also tend to be introverts. I know this because I once took a class that was basically understanding the meyers brigs personality type test. As well as some sort of career deciding test. I scored being most similar to dentists, then chemists, geologists, geographers, and something else I don't remember. I also know I am highly religious, I love science and getting a better understanding of this world. And the personality type test backed that up. When I asked how I could fit so well as a scientist as far s psychologically, the instructor said that the two are closely related. And if you look at history, some of the greatest scientists were religious. Writing was created by temples and shrines that then grew civilizations as they could store resources and keep track of them. So aside from being blatantly lied to because people want to promote their idea, what are we to do now? We are currently working with a system that blatantly oppresses religion and that the greatest works of it have been done by religious individuals. Are they to be cast out? their work to be ignored because they believe differently? The truth is they are right now and have been. If you don't believe me, consider the land forms of eastern Washington, in Washington state. They are believed to have formed from a great flood. The flood is believed to have come from a frozen damn of sorts that was holding back torrents of water. It is obviously true if you look at the area. However the idea was rejected when it was first suggested because it sounded too religious. Look it up if you don't believe me.
I will start ranting about the science about it later. And sadly that means we will be sticking on this topic for a bit longer. I wanted to end it exactly in a week. Anyway, does anyone know what should be debated next? I was thinking that perhaps a good overview of antiviruses would be useful on these forums but I'm 96% sure that's already here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
Scientific theory and the opinions of scientists can only be swayed with valid research and data. That is as it should be. Dissenting opinions must be credible in order to be considered, and that's why alternatives to evolution generally hold no sway and are quickly cast out of the scientific community. It is the duty of every scientist to keep only what is valid and cast out the junk. This is how science advances.
If people are afraid to present their work to the scientific community, then they mustn't be very sure of their research. That's the only explanation there could possibly be for it. Who cares how religious scientists can be? The fact is that it's not impossible and certainly not unprecedented for popular, long-standing theories to be overturned. All you need to do is properly support your claims, and it will happen. It will always take a while, but it can happen.
I think it's ignorance about how this stuff works that leads to the perception of problems of conduct. You say that evolution is blindly accepted. What makes you say that? I really do wonder.
Evolution is not blindly accepted, far from it. It had to earn its acceptance like any other theory. It's not like, always and forever, Evolution has been considered the end-all be-all of biology. It merely replaced the previously held theories because it offered a superior explanation for the current biodiversity of life. It was chosen over other theories because of its merits rather than any sort of dogma.
It wasn't over and done with at that point, either. Over the past 150 or so years, the theory has undergone numerous changes, as newer information has popped up, to more closely match reality. The theory of evolution itself has evolved over that span and has become what it is now, and it's widely believed to be very accurate at this point. I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could say it's blindly-accepted when it has been so heavily revised and added to in its lifetime, when it has been adjusted time and time again to more closely match reality. The very fact that it has been changed due to perceived discrepancies with reality runs counter to the assertion that it is or has ever been blindly accepted.
In terms of sci-fi I like it but this and the previous dates/"predictions":
22nd century
Diverging paths for humans and transhumans, as conditions on Earth continue to deteriorate.
2100-2149 | 2150-2199
Is the "extreme worst case scenario". The earth will be nowhere near that bad in 100-200 years. I'd wager it would not even be that bad in 400+ years assuming no gigantic nuclear holocaust happens in between then and now.
And this:
23rd century
Humanity spreads throughout the local stellar neighbourhood,
as Earth is restored to its former beauty.
2200-2249 | 2250-2299
Would almost certainly happen in the previous centuries (22nd century) given how fast technology can progress nowadays. Think about 40 years ago (late 1960s early 1970s) compared to now.
I realy don't want sci-fi arguments here. After all, everyone knows Picard was way better than Kirk and Janeway was far superior in all ways than both of them. Also enterprise, the newest one and the butcher of the series doesn't count because only morons watched that. Oh and, star wars is for little girls.
Scientific theory and the opinions of scientists can only be swayed with valid research and data. That is as it should be. Dissenting opinions must be credible in order to be considered, and that's why alternatives to evolution generally hold no sway and are quickly cast out of the scientific community. It is the duty of every scientist to keep only what is valid and cast out the junk. This is how science advances.
If people are afraid to present their work to the scientific community, then they mustn't be very sure of their research. That's the only explanation there could possibly be for it. Who cares how religious scientists can be? The fact is that it's not impossible and certainly not unprecedented for popular, long-standing theories to be overturned. All you need to do is properly support your claims, and it will happen. It will always take a while, but it can happen.
I think it's ignorance about how this stuff works that leads to the perception of problems of conduct. You say that evolution is blindly accepted. What makes you say that? I really do wonder.
Evolution is not blindly accepted, far from it. It had to earn its acceptance like any other theory. It's not like, always and forever, Evolution has been considered the end-all be-all of biology. It merely replaced the previously held theories because it offered a superior explanation for the current biodiversity of life. It was chosen over other theories because of its merits rather than any sort of dogma.
It wasn't over and done with at that point, either. Over the past 150 or so years, the theory has undergone numerous changes, as newer information has popped up, to more closely match reality. The theory of evolution itself has evolved over that span and has become what it is now, and it's widely believed to be very accurate at this point. I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could say it's blindly-accepted when it has been so heavily revised and added to in its lifetime, when it has been adjusted time and time again to more closely match reality. The very fact that it has been changed due to perceived discrepancies with reality runs counter to the assertion that it is or has ever been blindly accepted.
Good counter argument. To the blind acceptance I point to the out of place artifacts. Essentially its like saying. "well this doesn't fit our paradigm so we should ignore it". That's more of a conduct argument there but it still shouldn't happen. Though out of all of the non-religion based theories for how the universe exists, I will say that the current theory of evolution seems to be the most believable. Unless you believe the main selling point is the infinite time argument, in which case using that same argument it is more likely that we were created by some strange force or we live in the matrix, brain in a jar etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
Well, I am going to focus on the main debate concerning creationism versus evolution.
Contention One is Geology.
Using dates from the Old Testament and a limited knowledge of Judean history, some bishop during the 1600s reported that the Earth was created around 4000 B.C. However, geological evidence points to the fact that Earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years. According to theories, our Universe (I am a supporter of the multiverse theory) appeared roughly 13 billion years ago. That's a long way off.
Contention Two is Paleontology.
If we go along with the fact that creationism says that the Earth is roughly 6 thousand years old, how could the Iceman exist from 7000 years ago? Furthermore, how can one explain the existence of the dinosaurs? The earliest proof of existence of monerans dates back roughly 1.5 billion years ago.
Contention Three is Genetic Speciation.
If evolution doesn't exist, how can one explain the gradual speciation of a species due to habitat fragmentation.
I'm not going to continue arguing after my post but:
I realy don't want sci-fi arguments here. After all, everyone knows Picard was way better than Kirk and Janeway was far superior in all ways than both of them. Also enterprise, the newest one and the butcher of the series doesn't count because only morons watched that. Oh and, star wars is for little girls.
...
Go FIREFLY!!
I lol'd, seriously. Sci-fi discussions in a nutshell.
I dare not to start a debate with anyone in this topic. However, that was one of the most interesting websites I have ever visited. It makes me happy for my future, yet incredibly depressed for future generations.
Agree'd. I am a Christian, and I am a Theistic Evolutionist. It doesn't have much against it, so why not teach it?
You know there's already a 440+ page thread in General OT that primarily "discusses" this, right?
Somehow I doubt this. Even so, your teacher being unfair has nothing to do with the veracity of the material covered.
*wince*
What? That is what it's called...
I agree with you but you cant have a debate without people to debate and this topic tends to generate them so what the hell, why not? People want to see the one page rant so I am gonna work on a short version of it. Ill give a quick overview of the argument with no evidence at the moment. I will state now that my biggest problem with the theory isnt so much science based, its conduct based.
So the basis of the argument, bad conduct via "religious orientation" motives. Psychological evidence to back this up. Ye olde ooparts argument. Genetic change limitations. Separation of the ideas of evolution and adaptation. etc
Oh random funny argument I once heard. People are no longer homo sapiens, we have evolved past it! I wish I could find that argument again I would link to it here but I don't remember where it is. Obviously not provided by a professional but it was funny to see it.
Yes.
Google "hackintosh", there are instructions depending on your hardware.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
I have been sick for the past week or so after I posted this, I will get around to the entire page argument if I feel up to it today but for now I will explain the conduct thing.
Ok I will keep this short. What I don't like about the conduct of most evolutionary biologists is the heavy bias and promotion of evolution. Yes I know how retarded that sounds. Let me explain. I will use my least favorite evolutionary biologist as an example. Richard Dawkins, I hate his accent, honestly. But going beyond that he tends to provide evidence for evolution with claims like "the god of the Hebrew bible is a genocidal, homophobic madman" or something similar to that. He also frequently badmouths Jewish people. And Christians but mostly Jewish people. Well the Jewish people tend to take most of it from him. I also know plenty of evolutionary biologists who think Dawkins is a **** as well. However, there are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are decent scientists. I was once watching something on animal planet or discovery, I cant remember. Anyway they had an evolutionary biologist, as he claimed to be, talking about skunks. I tend to count how many times evolution or the theory of evolution as we see it today, starting with the big bang, appears in shows on discovery and animal planet, etc. It is actually quite disturbing how frequently it is mentioned. These shows go out of there way to mention it. It was the same with the show about the skunk. The evolutionary biologist was talking about his work with skunks and how they work from a biological perspective. He mentioned evolution only once when talking about how skunk spar came from marking territory. He had about half of the show. During the rest of the show, the narrator mentioned evolution 6 or 7 times. If the skunk evolved or was created doesn't change the way it lives or what it does, but it was added heavily anyway. And the evolutionary biologist knew much about skunk biology. He had some great insights and did some great work. ****'s, I mean Richard's, greatest work is the god delusion. Basically badmouthing anyone who disagrees with him.
So why is it important that conduct be considered. Plenty of other people promote their opinions. Well it is because of things like the haeckel diagrams. There are people today who still believe fetuses have gill slits. They aren't gill slits damn it, they are lumps that form lymph nodes. This is why conduct is important. Because if this theory is blindly accepted and everything else is ignored and repressed, and those who don't believe it are harassed. Then what you have is religious persecution. And you have a paradigm that people are afraid to stand against. We have this already. There are some afraid of speaking up against the paradigm. And those that do, fall. If you don't believe me, see Ben Stein's "expelled" and reread about what happened when I spoke up against the paradigm while being a student. The study some biology. And read some history. Scientists are, by nature, highly religious. That is to say, they are greatly involved in their religious orientation. That includes the theory of evolution. They also tend to be introverts. I know this because I once took a class that was basically understanding the meyers brigs personality type test. As well as some sort of career deciding test. I scored being most similar to dentists, then chemists, geologists, geographers, and something else I don't remember. I also know I am highly religious, I love science and getting a better understanding of this world. And the personality type test backed that up. When I asked how I could fit so well as a scientist as far s psychologically, the instructor said that the two are closely related. And if you look at history, some of the greatest scientists were religious. Writing was created by temples and shrines that then grew civilizations as they could store resources and keep track of them. So aside from being blatantly lied to because people want to promote their idea, what are we to do now? We are currently working with a system that blatantly oppresses religion and that the greatest works of it have been done by religious individuals. Are they to be cast out? their work to be ignored because they believe differently? The truth is they are right now and have been. If you don't believe me, consider the land forms of eastern Washington, in Washington state. They are believed to have formed from a great flood. The flood is believed to have come from a frozen damn of sorts that was holding back torrents of water. It is obviously true if you look at the area. However the idea was rejected when it was first suggested because it sounded too religious. Look it up if you don't believe me.
I will start ranting about the science about it later. And sadly that means we will be sticking on this topic for a bit longer. I wanted to end it exactly in a week. Anyway, does anyone know what should be debated next? I was thinking that perhaps a good overview of antiviruses would be useful on these forums but I'm 96% sure that's already here.
If people are afraid to present their work to the scientific community, then they mustn't be very sure of their research. That's the only explanation there could possibly be for it. Who cares how religious scientists can be? The fact is that it's not impossible and certainly not unprecedented for popular, long-standing theories to be overturned. All you need to do is properly support your claims, and it will happen. It will always take a while, but it can happen.
I think it's ignorance about how this stuff works that leads to the perception of problems of conduct. You say that evolution is blindly accepted. What makes you say that? I really do wonder.
Evolution is not blindly accepted, far from it. It had to earn its acceptance like any other theory. It's not like, always and forever, Evolution has been considered the end-all be-all of biology. It merely replaced the previously held theories because it offered a superior explanation for the current biodiversity of life. It was chosen over other theories because of its merits rather than any sort of dogma.
It wasn't over and done with at that point, either. Over the past 150 or so years, the theory has undergone numerous changes, as newer information has popped up, to more closely match reality. The theory of evolution itself has evolved over that span and has become what it is now, and it's widely believed to be very accurate at this point. I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could say it's blindly-accepted when it has been so heavily revised and added to in its lifetime, when it has been adjusted time and time again to more closely match reality. The very fact that it has been changed due to perceived discrepancies with reality runs counter to the assertion that it is or has ever been blindly accepted.
:biggrin.gif: argue that!
In terms of sci-fi I like it but this and the previous dates/"predictions":
Is the "extreme worst case scenario". The earth will be nowhere near that bad in 100-200 years. I'd wager it would not even be that bad in 400+ years assuming no gigantic nuclear holocaust happens in between then and now.
And this:
Would almost certainly happen in the previous centuries (22nd century) given how fast technology can progress nowadays. Think about 40 years ago (late 1960s early 1970s) compared to now.
Interesting link though.
...
Go FIREFLY!!
Good counter argument. To the blind acceptance I point to the out of place artifacts. Essentially its like saying. "well this doesn't fit our paradigm so we should ignore it". That's more of a conduct argument there but it still shouldn't happen. Though out of all of the non-religion based theories for how the universe exists, I will say that the current theory of evolution seems to be the most believable. Unless you believe the main selling point is the infinite time argument, in which case using that same argument it is more likely that we were created by some strange force or we live in the matrix, brain in a jar etc.
Contention One is Geology.
Using dates from the Old Testament and a limited knowledge of Judean history, some bishop during the 1600s reported that the Earth was created around 4000 B.C. However, geological evidence points to the fact that Earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years. According to theories, our Universe (I am a supporter of the multiverse theory) appeared roughly 13 billion years ago. That's a long way off.
Contention Two is Paleontology.
If we go along with the fact that creationism says that the Earth is roughly 6 thousand years old, how could the Iceman exist from 7000 years ago? Furthermore, how can one explain the existence of the dinosaurs? The earliest proof of existence of monerans dates back roughly 1.5 billion years ago.
Contention Three is Genetic Speciation.
If evolution doesn't exist, how can one explain the gradual speciation of a species due to habitat fragmentation.
I'm done now.
I lol'd, seriously. Sci-fi discussions in a nutshell.
I dare not to start a debate with anyone in this topic. However, that was one of the most interesting websites I have ever visited. It makes me happy for my future, yet incredibly depressed for future generations.
Anyways, it was time spent extremely well.