There are scientists who don’t believe in evolution, and a proper scientist wouldn’t just close off another path of thought just because their own theory is proven 98% right by their own standards.
Can’t watch them all because I’m at uni right now but I watched the maths one and I’m sold. I’ve just converted to Christianity and I already signed a contract which gives 70% of my earnings to the church.
I wasn’t arguing against what you said, just pointing something out. He was making fun of the people who were saying they didn’t believe in Evolution because it was just a “theory”.
Science (is supposed to) run on evidence. For me, the evidence supporting Evolution is staggering when compared to the alternative. Now, if someone comes out and says “Wait, actually, this is what really happened!” with all sorts of sensical evidence and shit to back him or her up (something that isn’t 6000 years old), I may change my mind. To me, it’s kinda like proving someone guilty in court; just because one or two things can’t be determined about the accused’s whereabouts doesn’t mean that, for me, that doesn’t mean a 98% sure case would fall apart. “Oh, fuckin, wait! We don’t know where he was the very minute of the case! His prints, DNA, semen, cell phone records, facebook status, and self-recorded video all says he was there directly before and directly after, but we don’t know where he was for 15 minutes! Someone else could have, fuckin, come in, knocked him out, perpetrated the crime, framed him, Jacked him off, and then left in their spaceship as to not get caught on camera.” I mean… no. It’s not really 98% right (unless I’m missing something), it’s 98% proven right. Which means, we are missing a single piece of evidence that would put the last of the questions to rest, much like my fake court situation. However, even then, if you didn’t believe in a 98% proven theory’s validity, a 100% one won’t be much different. You’ve made up your mind.
Evidence has been wrong before, which is why every 10 or so years when newer, better technology has come out, appeals come out of the woodwork, old defense attornies file appeals, and other things like that.
Didn’t we have thread a little while ago where someone was arrested for rape sent to prison for 10 years, just for it to be found out that he DIDN’T do it.
And if we’re talking about people who “did it” and got off with 98% evidence, see: OJ Simpson.
Just like in court, if something has not been proven true/guilty, then it’s false/not guilty.
It doesn’t matter what happens, if the ruling is not guilty, then by the law/scientific law, he is not guilty/the theory is just that.
What…? I read through that three times and I don’t understand the point you are trying to convey. I think it had something to do with evidence =/= truth…? And then something about… guilty = laws? I don’t know. What I’M saying is that Evidence is this, in as few words as humanly possible: Evidence. Not proof, but evidence. They are like little factual pieces of information. When you add evidence together, you start getting a bigger picture. When you put enough evidence together, you see the truth. However, that doesn’t mean that that truth will be viewed the same by everyone. In those cases, it wasn’t faulty evidence that was at fault: it was the people perceiving the evidence.
Yes, we will gain new technologies, but there are a few infalible truths that cannot be changed, denied, or altered. I mentioned them all in my post an hour ago, but they are basically carbon dating, Dinosaurs, and the fact that all living things have been proven to change over time. Dinosaurs prove that life has existed for a long time, Carbon Dating proves how long, and examining their bones, as well as more recent bones, proves that we/they/everything is changing over time. If you don’t believe in those things, or feel they have the same validity as OJ’s innocence… I really have no clue what to say.
lol this thread turned into yet **ANOTHER **Evolution vs Creationism (lol seriously?) discussion and joined the countless others on the internet. No side will give up an inch to point out that their “evidence” and “logic” is proved wrong until the big man (not saying I’m religious or not )upstairs comes waltzing down and says creationism or evolution is a lie. Even **THEN **people will still debate if there were “hidden meanings” what the big man says lol.
Below Video is just what i see in a nutshell when i read how this thread turned out, not so much religion in general. (This thread is still funny sh1t)
[media=youtube]L4k6Od0hn5E[/media]
Side Note: Boondocks has such genius writing is SO many topics…
pretty horrible post considering what goes on in N.Korea.
also:
the meat of the article is this::
"The South Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) announced that textbook publishers will revise editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse and the Archaeopteryx, which is an ancestor of modern day birds."
It doesnt even make sense in the context of the article. Not to mention the fossil record is spotty at best.
indeed.
Its nice to read others thoughts and use them instead of your own, but the interesting thing is that, per the scientific method, in order to be a bonafide theory (falsifiable), a valid hypothesis (testable) must be tested via experimentation repeatedly.
Thats the thing.
Those theories are all readily observable in action, testable and constantly evaluated by their use in making meaningful predi ctions. It should be apparent that evolution is very different. Ironically, it is the scientists that are using theory in its colloquial usage in the case of evolution and assiging it the merits as if it were a bonafide scientific theory. This comp[romise of science itself is being done as a kneejerk reaction to generate ammo to fight creationism (kind of an interesting bookend to the scientific establishment’s dismissal of the religious side’s ‘Big Bang’ theory) As a theory, it is relatively antisocial. Whereas the theories you listed above are all exciting and in flux, also we know that each one is probably wrong.
(and after the big bang theory was finally accepted the religious side eventually decided to turna gainst it in order to reciprpcate in generating ammo against the scientists, it all a bunch of dishonest, complete, utter nonsense.
So you admit that evolution is not observable, yet you still reserve that right to elevate it to scientific theory status?
And while it may be intuitive that microevolution leads to speciation, nature does not necessarily mirror our intuition. If it did, the scientific method would be unnecessary. Do you see how you are becoming exactly what you are arguing against?
The gist of it is:It doesn’t really matter how you feel as an individual, as long as the community itself doesn’t acknowledge something as end all be all on an official scale, no one has the right to put anyone down on anything.
Why’d you guys turn this into a Science vs Religion thing when it looks like, religious or not, people in S. Korea don’t “believe” in evolution including the biology teachers.
They are actually trying to determine whether it was Jesus or Biology that turned you into the blubbering cunt that you are today. I tried to tell them that it was one of those pro choice things but these dudes are stuck on the ideal that you were just born that way.
That hurt.