Study help- What is the purpose of the evolution theory?
Options
Comments
-
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Yet all your claims of saying there is no Creator you got from others and is not original because you and many others like yourself must have proof that a Creator doesn't exist because you can't SEE it. The same way you don't see gravity, even though there's a law that abides for gravity with a theory that explains gravity you still can't see it..can you? The wind for example...we have all the instruments to measure wind speed, we can also SEE the trees blowing, clouds moving and so forth, so it's safe to assume that wind exists, right? So basically if you can't see something, but it's verified through these instruments and theories, right? Is it safe to say that you can easily accept this right?
Everything that you said does not apply to your theory of ? . You just pointed out measurement and effects that were concluded to exist after observation and experiment to repeat the effects. They're still effects that are measurable. What causes those effects are also measurable and reproducible (or at least can be utilized or manipulated).
I don't take anything from anyone without scrutiny and you can get the equipment to test out many of the theories. You can learn on your own and put it to the test if you really wanted to prove something. There are also tangible results that lead to greater invention as evident in this society that you find distasteful.
To note last, I never believed in a ? . Even the thought of it never clicked for me because of the definitions supplied of why there is a ? or YHWH. I notice most people that are religious grew up in it even if they are unaware (meaning it was always around them somehow). That's the price paid for being born in such an environment. You don't know any other way. I always followed my own path (if you can even call it that) which made me an independent thinker.
There was also the fact that no one ever showed me evidence and i have a natural disposition to not give a ? about opinions with no backing. I know how to bow out when proven wrong but it takes a lot to convince me. Much more then the writings of man with no way to test their theories and with conflicting logic once scrutinized. Things like evolution and probability (which i actually work with in computers) solidified my initial stance. I have no final answer to everything, but I'm sure your going to tell me what it is. -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Yet all your claims of saying there is no Creator you got from others and is not original because you and many others like yourself must have proof that a Creator doesn't exist because you can't SEE it. The same way you don't see gravity, even though there's a law that abides for gravity with a theory that explains gravity you still can't see it..can you? The wind for example...we have all the instruments to measure wind speed, we can also SEE the trees blowing, clouds moving and so forth, so it's safe to assume that wind exists, right? So basically if you can't see something, but it's verified through these instruments and theories, right? Is it safe to say that you can easily accept this right?
Cmon you can do bette than that old weak argument.
No you can't see gravity but Everytime I throw something up in the air it comes down. When I jump, I land. I don't float off the planet into outer space. Gravity is the reason we have an atmosphere. Weight is the effect of gravity upon mass.
I can't see wind but I can feel it. I can see the trees and bushes and shrubs and grass swaying because of it. I can turn a fan off and on at will. When I go outside, and it's windy, I can say, "man it's windy out here today."
I've never heard anybody go outside and say, "man, it's holy out this muthafucka today." -
well unless you are over a billion years old to have witnessed evolution firsthand or an archaeologist who tests fossils then you are guilty of belief as well.hell, unless youre omniscient you HAVE to believe in something because by definition culture is "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another". you submit to western culture therefore you believe in the architects of it. you ? in here are ridiculous. you copy after them satanic crackers philosophy because you think its the "intelligent" choice while the elite wield the power of gods over you. thats reality there. if it wasnt for spiritual brothers and sisters that realized the power of divinity within them making a stand, ? would be still sipping water from colored water fountains at best or be straight up chattel at worst. the same dudes who created all these theories you atheists use to invalidate the Most High are in the same league that used pseudo-science to invalidate the humanity of the kidnapped african.
do you believe that 1 + 1 = 2? some things are facts that are proven and can be criticised and tested. science is one of those things, theres no need to believe, believing is for losers. if a scientific theory holds up then i will base desitions in my life based opon it and it it is proven inferior or wrong then i will change my desitions accordingly. if you make choices on your life based opon a "belief" then you are an idiot, regrless of if the outcome of that belief is benificial or hurtful. and you didnt adress my question, defend your non belief in the goods of greek mythology and I garuntee the same will aply to your beliefs. please I would love for you to prove me wrong -
if theories are proven then they become axioms. they no longer remain theories. and im pretty sure i was referring to scientific dilemnas much more complicated than 1 + 1= 2. thank u for proving your hypocricy by ducking my statement. i will repeat it in the misguided hope that you will actually honestly acknowledge and directly address it---- unless you are over a billion years old to have witnessed evolution firsthand or an archaeologist who tests fossils then you are guilty of belief as well. if you have not tested or experienced it yourself, you are BELIEVING somebody else. what makes your sources that you believe more valid than mine? science has run ? as far as what mainstream society intellectually valid for hundreds of years now and i see no ? utopia.Rizzo-da-Great wrote: »do you believe that 1 + 1 = 2? some things are facts that are proven and can be criticised and tested. science is one of those things, theres no need to believe, believing is for losers. if a scientific theory holds up then i will base desitions in my life based opon it and it it is proven inferior or wrong then i will change my desitions accordingly. if you make choices on your life based opon a "belief" then you are an idiot, regrless of if the outcome of that belief is benificial or hurtful. and you didnt adress my question, defend your non belief in the goods of greek mythology and I garuntee the same will aply to your beliefs. please I would love for you to prove me wrong
lets see what websters says belief is-
1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
until u publish whatever scientific ? that you base your life decisions on (as u say) in a format which can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOU came up with all the data YOURSELF FROM SCRATCH, then you fall under that definition of belief.
as for that ridiculous greek ? challenge..there is NOTHING similar between the greek gods and YHWH. let me just give u one little reason why..greek gods are people in ? form that have sex with human beings. That doesnt apply to YHWH. YHWH is a process, energy, spirit. no anthropomorphism at all. -
False.if theories are proven then they become axioms.
In the field of biology, theories do not "graduate" to anything else.
You have had this explained to you repeatedly, but you are unwilling to learn. It is you who are close-minded.
Evolution is a collection of proven facts. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how those facts work.
You will not accept this because you have been mislead by irrational superstitious people. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »False.
In the field of biology, theories do not "graduate" to anything else.
You have had this explained to you repeatedly, but you are unwilling to learn. It is you who are close-minded.
Evolution is a collection of proven facts. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how those facts work.
You will not accept this because you have been mislead by irrational superstitious people.
what irrational superstitious people? what superstitions? baseless idiotic accusations based on your myopic prejudices.
i looked this ? up a long time ago, with an open mind. i know the difference between regular fact and scientific "fact".
the best explanation one has offer does not make it the best explanation period.
my view on evolution is it may or may not be true in part. but aspects of it like natural selection are subjective as hell. by whose standards is one suited to his environment? why is it assumed that evolution nullifies creative design? WHAT ABOUT ABIOGENESIS?
but alas this is all irrelevant to the sentence u cherry-picked from my post. my position still remains that a belief is a belief is a belief...whether its based on the statements of evidence analyzed by a ? in a pastor's robe or a ? in a lab coat. -
you just admitted that a belief based on evidence is not equal to a belief based on mere "faith"
why kufi rockin ? always be the dumbest yo? -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »you just admitted that a belief based on evidence is not equal to a belief based on mere "faith"
why kufi rockin ? always be the dumbest yo?
YOU DUMB ? ....where did i admit that? belief is belief. period. -
Damn, your mole is living it up out here.its used to make my mole jelatin shoe gum
Some strong feelings in here by the way.
-
if theories are proven then they become axioms. they no longer remain theories. and im pretty sure i was referring to scientific dilemnas much more complicated than 1 + 1= 2. thank u for proving your hypocricy by ducking my statement. i will repeat it in the misguided hope that you will actually honestly acknowledge and directly address it---- unless you are over a billion years old to have witnessed evolution firsthand or an archaeologist who tests fossils then you are guilty of belief as well. if you have not tested or experienced it yourself, you are BELIEVING somebody else. what makes your sources that you believe more valid than mine? science has run ? as far as what mainstream society intellectually valid for hundreds of years now and i see no ? utopia.
lets see what websters says belief is-
1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
until u publish whatever scientific ? that you base your life decisions on (as u say) in a format which can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOU came up with all the data YOURSELF FROM SCRATCH, then you fall under that definition of belief.
as for that ridiculous greek ? challenge..there is NOTHING similar between the greek gods and YHWH. let me just give u one little reason why..greek gods are people in ? form that have sex with human beings. That doesnt apply to YHWH. YHWH is a process, energy, spirit. no anthropomorphism at all.
I think you missed the point, WHY dont you believe in the greek gods? -
Rizzo-da-Great wrote: »I think you missed the point, WHY dont you believe in the greek gods?
because theyre people in ? form that have sex with human beings. u can address my point anytime now.... -
what irrational superstitious people? what superstitions? baseless idiotic accusations based on your myopic prejudices.
i looked this ? up a long time ago, with an open mind. i know the difference between regular fact and scientific "fact".
the best explanation one has offer does not make it the best explanation period.
my view on evolution is it may or may not be true in part. but aspects of it like natural selection are subjective as hell. by whose standards is one suited to his environment? why is it assumed that evolution nullifies creative design? WHAT ABOUT ABIOGENESIS?
but alas this is all irrelevant to the sentence u cherry-picked from my post. my position still remains that a belief is a belief is a belief...whether its based on the statements of evidence analyzed by a ? in a pastor's robe or a ? in a lab coat.
Abiogenesis is as yet unexplained. It could be the action of a divine creator but I believe it will be found to have naturalistic causes. Regardless of how life started evolution explains how that life developed into the complex set of living organisms today.
I agree that a "belief is a belief is a belief", however the foundation or justification can alter the validity of a belief. For instance if some guy is standing on the edge of a build stating his belief that he can fly we know he is nuts. If we get him off the roof safely we would lock him into a psych ward for evaluation. The process by which a belief is arrived at also can separate the beliefs. If your stock broker bought stocks for you by flipping a coin you would be ? . If he use research and careful analysis you would have much more confidence in his beliefs about stocks. The difference between the guy in pastor robes and the guy in the lab coat is the process by which they derive their beliefs.
The basic difference between these two groups is the pastor robes guy makes the world fit his beliefs while the lab coat guy makes his beliefs fit the world. If the evidence no longer support evolution the lab coat guys would drop it and move on, however if evidence no longer supported (or did not even exist) the presence of a ? the pastor robe guys would not drop their beliefs. Regardless of how much we explain of the universe around and how remote we make the need for some creator the theist will never abandon their belief. -
Abiogenesis is as yet unexplained. It could be the action of a divine creator but I believe it will be found to have naturalistic causes. Regardless of how life started evolution explains how that life developed into the complex set of living organisms today.
I agree that a "belief is a belief is a belief", however the foundation or justification can alter the validity of a belief. For instance if some guy is standing on the edge of a build stating his belief that he can fly we know he is nuts. If we get him off the roof safely we would lock him into a psych ward for evaluation. The process by which a belief is arrived at also can separate the beliefs. If your stock broker bought stocks for you by flipping a coin you would be ? . If he use research and careful analysis you would have much more confidence in his beliefs about stocks. The difference between the guy in pastor robes and the guy in the lab coat is the process by which they derive their beliefs.
The basic difference between these two groups is the pastor robes guy makes the world fit his beliefs while the lab coat guy makes his beliefs fit the world. If the evidence no longer support evolution the lab coat guys would drop it and move on, however if evidence no longer supported (or did not even exist) the presence of a ? the pastor robe guys would not drop their beliefs. Regardless of how much we explain of the universe around and how remote we make the need for some creator the theist will never abandon their belief.
to me youre basically saying an educated guess iss better than a guess. i can get with that.
then are u saying that basically the beliefs of science are dynamic while those of religion are static? personally i think the truth is between two extremes. its an educated guess because most of the people who came with the major scientific breakthroughs in our modern world acknowledged a creator, yet it seems most didnt really go for that personal relationship with ? egocentric religious nonsense.
ah yeah..almost forgot. to you consider experience to be evidence? intuition? the effects of prophecy and prayer? it seems pretty unfair for a demand in material evidence for immaterial claims. how do u suppose we could develop instruments to measure spirituality? only thing i remotely heard of was this thing...looking in this linr of research (neurotheology- labeled by some as pseudoscience) has caused me to not so much need the Creator mor but rather to realize new possibilities of the Ultimate Creative Intelligence dweling within as well as without.
[video=google;5474604744218568426]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474604744218568426#docid=1030598948823323439[/video] -
^video messing up. anyways its about practical neuro theology, persingers "? helmet" and the shiva neural stimulation system. the guy is tood murphy a student of dr. m.a. persinger at laurentian university.
-
because theyre people in ? form that have sex with human beings. u can address my point anytime now....
how does that prove they are not real? -
because theyre people in ? form that have sex with human beings. u can address my point anytime now....
im sorry, what was your point i want to adress it but i dont know which one your refering to
