evolution =/= abiogenesis.
Evolution doesn’t attempt to actually explain the beginning of life as we know it. You’re mixing the two of them up. Also I hope that guy with his ridiculous videos is trolling, for his sake aswell.
you would never know
I contributed plenty of my own opinion. I just didn’t take a side. Believe it or not, that is possible.
If you’d read, you’d see I’ve been in agreement with most protest here against creationism being inserted into schools and the removal of the evolution curriculum in South Korea. The only things I’ve been against are: 1) the rude responses by individuals, which do nothing by discredit their merit, 2) The fact that only religious peoples have issues with evolutionary theory, 3) that evolutionary theory is the backbone of the origin of life. I try to keep my personal opinion out of if to avoid personal attack and to come forth as unbiased as possible (also, it’s fun to play devil’s advocate with some people).
In response to the agnostic comment. I only meant to say that people who claim to believe that the existence of a deity cannot be identified (as well as other metaphysical topics) also sometimes take issue with the theory of evolution. That is all. Agnosticism has NO MORE than that to do with this discussion. I am sorry if I used the word agnostic out of context. That was purely by mistake and lack of understanding on my part. I only was replying to response that claimed religious people were the ONLY people who had problems with evolution, and that is simply an untrue statement. Does this make any more sense now?
My only issue with you is your manner of discourse. The internet isn’t an excuse to sound unlearned or be spiteful.
Yes I know that. I already mentioned why I brought it up. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
So, I stopped playing because I just couldn’t focus on both Fighting Games and this thread at the same time.
I don’t believe Creationilism should be taught side by side, simply because I believe in separation of church and state.
Teaching about religion in school would enlighten a lot of students, but I don’t think there is enough time in the day for every religon to be taught, and if some religons aren’t taught, that would be unfair.
On the other hand, people thinking that science is better than religon are kind of weird.
Logic and faith are the same thing, the same as science and religion.
Here is some food for though, which is amazing I’ve never though of this.
Supposedly, the chances of 15 elements bonding toghther to form simple organic compounds, and then bond to form complex organic molecules, which then react with other molecules that lead to fats, fibers, starches, etc, which then lead to even more complex compounds such as RNA is impossible low.
There is more and more proof that there exists a multiverse. One of my favorite theory’s backs my belief in the Universe accounts for gravities weak attraction, it states that the “graviton” slips in between universes. So if the multiverse exist, and String Theory supplemented by M-theory, states that the multiverse is an infinite space with an infinite amount of universes. If there is an infinite amount of universes, then any small probability of life existing in one single universe increases to 100% because there are now an infinite amount of places that can happen. We are no longer limited to one Universe, but an infinite amount of Universes.
Well that’s only if the multiverse exists.
NO. At a primitive level, yes. But logic reasons using what’s available to it, and if the data needed is not present or available, it will seek it. Faith, faith is blind. There has to be no logic involved for there to be faith
Considering logic is putting faith into what you know, it is.
Without faith, there would be no logic, and without logic there would be no faith.
They are inseparable.
you knwo what i find funny, that aparently the M theory is mutual exclussive with the big bang o_O
but faith doesn’t reason. Faith doesn’t care about anything, logic cares about everything. im not seein how they are the same thing. Unless you are talking in a philosophical sense.
but isn’t the purpose of M-theory to explain how big relates to small? If so, how?
I realize and agree with you on 2 and 3, as non-religious people can have some issues with the theory of evolution and as abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Heck, even scientists have issues with the some parts of the theory of evolution, and that is why they are constantly researching and trying to gather evidence to either prove or disprove it.
So to get to my issue with you on my perceived pretentiousness of you, what does not having the knowledge whether or not a supernatural being exists have to do with having issues with theory of evolution? Even when you say what you meant by agnostic it still doesn’t add up. Are you implying that agnostics are non-religious therefore arguing against the point that “only religious peoples have issues with evolutionary theory”?
I love me some Star Trek
I think before we start down this road, I want three things defined by you so we can debate this on the same page.
1:What is proof?
2:What is Faith.
3.What is Logic.
Since logic is reasoning and faith is a product of reasoning, how can they not be the same?
Just because one takes a few more steps?
Logic is based of reasoning, and reasoning is based of inductive logic/deductive logic.
To deduce requires evidence, yet evidence is subjective.
What proves what, but that’s when reasoning comes in hand.
So reasoning really does depend on the person.
You can say that since there are holes in the theory of evolution, that they can be abused to show that creation is true, and vice versa.
Also@Idlikesomepoundcake:True, science does teach other ways, but still under it’s own umbrella of rules called logic.
It’s unfair to expect something to work when your rules are diametrically opposed to it.
I’d be glad to say that religion is unscientific, but, to throw it out because it doesn’t fit isn’t okay.
I’d love to make fun of Korea for this but I distinctly remember not really being taught evolution in high school. We were basically just told that it is a theory that is out there but it wasn’t explained to the point where it could sound like anything but a load of crap. Dat Texas public education.
I didn’t learn the theory well enough to accept it until I took Bio in college.
Er. I don’t know if this is a trap, but yes, that is what I was saying.
Someone said, “Religious people are the only people who have a problem with evolution”. I simply used agnostics as an example. Atheist, Christians, hell even Aliens could all have a problem with evolution. I just thought agnostics may be the most least polarizing due to the discussion.
yeap
but aparently the explanation that the collision of the membranes can create a new universe inside the multiverse is considered an alternative theory for the bbt, though i always thought as one that could explain why the bb could happen
aparently both camps were awating for the results of the plank mission on the CMBR since with said results one or another could be proven
i dont have all the details here with me (plus is 1 am and i have to work tomorrow) but is pretty much what i remember about the subject
i was baffled about it to, lol
but remember this is only about the big bang, not about the inflation theory and the expansion of the universe
Proof (in the science sense) is quantifiable data which supports a model attempting to describe and predict future events by a certain action that is observable or in macro, micro, nano, or feta range. Proof is not ; OH my god he should have died, proof of god, or I say a white light when i was out, therefore god exists. And I do not care for the definition of proof as used by courts.
Faith is belief in an idea based on intuition or feeling, regardless of proof provided against it or for it.
Logic, is making sense of data and then applying it
By the way, if you search evolution on wikipedia, the article directly states that everything evolved from a common ancestor.
Has that actually been proven?
Why is there even discussion?
If someone HONESTLY believes in Creationism (to which I’d respond with “niggas is stupid”), no amount of discussion on SRK will change anything. No amount of discussion ANYWHERE will change that. GOD him/her self would have to come down and say “Seriously my nigga, Darwin’s the fucking truth” for them to change their mind.
If you believe the Earth is 6k years old, if you don’t believe in Dinosaurs, if you don’t believe in science that challenges a text written by ignorant, random plant eating motha fuckas from back when it was thought that our brain was in our stomach (in the thinking sense) and the world was a 50 mile stretch of flat that could be fallen off of, if you believe carbon dating is bullshit, my nigga, I don’t know what to tell you. I’m sorry for the loss of the MAGNIFICENT mind that evolution granted you, I’m sorry you poison it and degrade it so extensively, but there’s nothing I can do for you. Jesus Fucking Christ couldn’t help you where you are.
You’re right, but “making sense” is really loose.
Some things don’t make sense to some people.
I read a few pages back that someone doesn’t believe in electromagnetic theory, I do, but he doesn’t.
That’s one of the things I do like about science, even though things are “proven”, no one for even a second lets go of the idea that everything they know could be proven wrong with one discovery.
The Blank State Theory was pretty strong for awhile, hell, the many worlds theory was strong for awhile.
I don’t think anything is “wrong” or “right” until absolutely proven, and even then…
I just have ideas of things, proven with my sense of logic and faith.
Might have been better to just flat out say even some atheists may have problems with theory of evolution, because you confirmed my suspicion to be true. I kept accusing you of being pretentious because of your wrong usage and** knowledge** of the word agnostic, as it was clear to me that you didn’t really know the true implication behind the word, especially in this context.
I asked if you thought agnosticism is a religious standpoint, and by religious standpoint I meant a standpoint regarding religion, meaning being “non-religious” is a religious standpoint, and it’s clear that you think it’s a religious standpoint (as non-religious) based on your confirmation to my question.
It was a pretentious usage of the word after all, like I thought.
Agnosticism is not a religious standpoint (or non-religious in your implication). You can’t just be an agnostic in this context as it offers no standpoint on religion, you can either be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. Having or not having the knowledge whether or not God exists has nothing to do with belief. Like it or not, there can only be 4 categories of religious standpoint. Gnostic theists, agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, and gnostic atheists.
I know of many religious people who are agnostic. Meaning, they admit that they do and can not have the knowledge whether or not a god exists, but choose to believe in one, rendering your usage of the word pretentious and fallacious as I thought.