Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/27/08 06:30 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
It's just that I don't possibly see how you can have such a philosophy and still be a theist. I mean, isn't that the whole point of most religions; believing without evidence?

That's typically the case with the religious community, but I don't like it.

People usually say something along the lines of "Have faith!", which prompts me to ask "why?"

You even said yourself that you consider Christianity has proof with various artefacts and whatnot, and I'm not necessarily saying these are not legitimate sources of evidence, but I mean, come on, these are barely "concrete", so to say.

As in, there's no dispute between anyone over those particular findings.

I break it down like this:
-Evolution has its problems.
-Religion (as a whole) has its problems.

Many religions and findings with evolution have been either "wrong" or "inaccurate" on more than 1 occassion.

But these texts, writings, documents and artifacts are conclusive. We don't need to go back and re-examine the material on most of these.

They are only small bits of evidence to support a religion (or rather, the proper religion inside a religious name), but it's still, at least, "concrete" in a sense that we don't need to go over it. Though I wish we would for much of it to make sure it's as close to 100% as possible.

Which is why i'm still taking biology, earth science, and soon to come, evolutionary biology classes as well through college.

Why should religion get in the way of study? If anything, religion encourages it (The Bible also says to as well, though not many will actually follow through with it).

i'm responding to your post but unless some of the points are just general statements and are directed at anyone who reads them so don't take it as me questioning your intelligence.

At 1/27/08 01:53 AM, Memorize wrote: You didn't have to reply to it. Heh, I was looking at it on my own. I just brought it up because I like his/her objective point of view (which, in my opinion, is lacking in a lot of areas).

bah, i said i would.

I just wish we had that same amount of objectivity and criticism as previous, famous evolutionists had decades ago. Basically, I wish people (the religious as well) had that mentality. But as time goes on, the next generation will lose it and instead of following the evidence, they'll instead just look for anything that would remotely prove "their" point.

but you may be referring to the non-scientific community. they are the ones responsible for the continued publishing of things like the embryo drawings (though as i said, most other hoaxes and mistakes are well acknowledged as being such).

Many religious people have been wrong many times. Scientists have also been wrong many times. What we know now could just as well change decades from now. As stated, there was a relatively famous fossil that took over 30 years to figure out what it actually was. That's why i'm not going to waste my time listening to any of them (religious and non-religious) when their "best" isn't necessarily "good", especially when they've lost their criticism.

hopefully those who believe in the scietific explanations also keep in mind that being proven wrong is a good thing as it brings us closer to the truth.
while being proven wrong may be a problem for those who adhere to religious explanations there is absolutley nothing wrong with scientific ideas being proven wrong.
and i also don
it would also help to know what you're referring to but doesn't matter.

It's just that when it comes to this particular subject of evolution; I think there are too many holes to fill before coming out and saying "this is how it is... mostly". Fossil records not matching up. Sudden massive amounts of differing species within the next fossil layer. Some of them being completely out of place.

a lot of what you are referring to is either untrue or a misunderstanding but thats not the point. even if it may not be the answer to how things came to be it is the best, and extremely well supported, explanation. while it may have little impact on us in our every day lives it helps scientists understand and gain new perspectives on different issues with regard to biology, psychology and other fields.

That and i've gotten different terms from my science teachers as well as from science magazines. Sol here said that Macro-Evolution is just a term. But i've read that, and how it's an actual theory (from my biology teachers through high school anyway).

from what i've seen, whenever macro and micro evolution are referred to the only difference between them is the extent of changes a being has gone through. micro refers to small changes and is often seen in nature and is accepted by creationists where as macro refers to large changes that would characterise such things as speciation (this obviously being rejected by creationist). who coined this terms or where they came from, i don't know. personally i would guess the creationists started differentiating the two (though there is no real difference, one is dependant solely on the accumulation of enough changes within an organism) so they could acknowledge the small and irrefutable changes that occur constantly and still claim that speciation is impossible.
as far of a "theory of macroevolution", i have been unable to find any mention of it as its own theory, you're teacher may have been referring to general evolution. as to why it was referred to as theory was; either from confusion, as micro and macro are often mentioned, or a lack of knowledge about the subject (i doubt your teacher has any relevant qualificationsqualifications relevant to the study of evolution)

At 1/27/08 06:00 PM, Memorize wrote: If 99.9% of all mutations are either harmful or neutral, then according to some mathematicians, our current known rate of evolution would have to take well over 5 billion years. Some say Trillions.

i would love to see how they got that number. sort of like the numbers used to "prove" the creation of life is an improbability, do the people who calculated that know all the variables associated with such an event? no, no one does and to claim otherwise is a lie.
not to mention improbabilities in general are irrelevant since how else the universe, or life, could have got to this point is irrelevant since we're already here.

personally i find that probability works against creationism since in essence, no matter how infinitesimally small the chances are, they are admitting that there is a possibility that things worked out against them.

and sadisticmonkey, i'd still like to see (i'm not sure if i brought this up in this thread or another) some scriptural proof that the Bible must be taken literally.

At 1/27/08 08:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

not to mention improbabilities in general are irrelevant since how else the universe, or life, could have got to this point is irrelevant since we're already here.

Then why is the theory of evolution even mentioned if it doesn't matter since we're "already here"?

At 1/27/08 09:19 PM, Memorize wrote: Then why is the theory of evolution even mentioned if it doesn't matter since we're "already here"?

what i meant by "we're already here" is that we are unaware of all the times the chances for life, or other things, have appeared and failed. while it might have been one in a billion life on earth may have been the billionth "attempt" at life.

At 1/27/08 08:22 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

but you may be referring to the non-scientific community. they are the ones responsible for the continued publishing of things like the embryo drawings (though as i said, most other hoaxes and mistakes are well acknowledged as being such).

And yet none of them (them = "qualified") ever actively tell them to correct it.

hopefully those who believe in the scietific explanations also keep in mind that being proven wrong is a good thing as it brings us closer to the truth.

My problem is that when they're wrong, they'll still sometimes run with it.

Closer to the truth? Please. If anything, that sounds like an excuse so that they won't have to admit to anything technically wrong.

Either:
A) We're right.
or
B) We're wrong... but we're closer to the truth.

It sounds like an add on. My question is: How many times do they have to be wrong WHILE putting it out there as "We can't get much more right than this"?

a lot of what you are referring to is either untrue or a misunderstanding but thats not the point. even if it may not be the answer to how things came to be it is the best, and extremely well supported, explanation. while it may have little impact on us in our every day lives it helps scientists understand and gain new perspectives on different issues with regard to biology, psychology and other fields.

Some fossil records are known to be out of order.

But just as that link I gave states: They have explainations for that as well.

Basically it means:
-They were wrong
-Then came up with a reason to make sure they were correct.

When religion plays such a dominant role in the majority of lives on this planet; why is it excluded from scientific discoveries where something would be in favor of a religion?

It's as if they're saying: We were wrong, but since religion can never be right, this other explaination must be correct.

from what i've seen, whenever macro and micro evolution are referred to the only difference between them is the extent of changes a being has gone through.

And my teacher seperated the 2 because of the definitions YOU just gave. He did that because he said he wanted it to be more accurate when presenting it to the students.

At 1/27/08 09:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

what i meant by "we're already here" is that we are unaware of all the times the chances for life, or other things, have appeared and failed. while it might have been one in a billion life on earth may have been the billionth "attempt" at life.

And how do you know this?

The theory that the universe is either infinite or forever expanding and contracting to cause infinite big bangs.

Mathematically, the Universe can not be infinite. And since the universe is consistantly wearing down and "infinite big bang" is merely speculation at best; this is exactly why I call these theories 50% evidence and 50% guess-work.

Basically it would work like this: In order for this to happen, this must've happend, which means one of these must've happend ect ect.. And it'll come to the point where half of that information has no evidence, has no proof, and is just assumption.

But you're right. The problem typically isn't with those who are in this field of study; but with the writers, media, and news who throw it around as if it's the only possible explaination in existance.

Any scientific discovery with any plan in mind other than finding the answer is probably going to end up with problems. Because humans are creatures that fight for their existence [An atheist can agree with this] it would only make sense that some way or another, they would need to justify an importance of being around to do things.

At 1/27/08 09:31 PM, Memorize wrote: My problem is that when they're wrong, they'll still sometimes run with it.

and that doesn't happen very often. at least not as often as creationists claim.

Closer to the truth? Please. If anything, that sounds like an excuse so that they won't have to admit to anything technically wrong.

an error requires correction, the correction may be more or less accurate but at least the earlier possibility has been eliminated. i'm not sure how its an excuse since the error is admitted.

It sounds like an add on. My question is: How many times do they have to be wrong WHILE putting it out there as "We can't get much more right than this"?

people like to know things, science could be kept secret. generally things are never completley wrong so while some aspects may be wrongs others are still valid and can be put to use in a relevant field.

Some fossil records are known to be out of order.

by fossil records do you mean the strata are out of order or fossils appear in strata (or other areas specific to a certain point in time) that they should not be in?

When religion plays such a dominant role in the majority of lives on this planet; why is it excluded from scientific discoveries where something would be in favor of a religion?

generally it isn't and i'm unaware of any significant religious discoveries that were ignored.

And my teacher seperated the 2 because of the definitions YOU just gave. He did that because he said he wanted it to be more accurate when presenting it to the students.

that doesn't make them seperate theorems. i don't know how it would make it more accurate.

Hi! I'd like to join the conversation. I'm a religious half-breed. I'm an agnostic LaVeyan satanist and Entathanist. ^_^

At 1/27/08 09:57 PM, Entathan wrote: Hi! I'd like to join the conversation. I'm a religious half-breed. I'm an agnostic LaVeyan satanist and Entathanist. ^_^

Shut up! I'm right, you're wrong!

hahaha

At 1/27/08 09:59 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/27/08 09:57 PM, Entathan wrote: Hi! I'd like to join the conversation. I'm a religious half-breed. I'm an agnostic LaVeyan satanist and Entathanist. ^_^

Shut up! I'm right, you're wrong!

hahaha

Meany. You don't even know what Entathanism is...

At 1/27/08 10:05 PM, Entathan wrote: Meany. You don't even know what Entathanism is...

I dont care I'm right, you shut up!! I use logic and stuff with things that I don't actually know about.

lol typical religious debator.

At 1/27/08 10:18 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/27/08 10:05 PM, Entathan wrote: Meany. You don't even know what Entathanism is...

I dont care I'm right, you shut up!! I use logic and stuff with things that I don't actually know about.

lol typical religious debator.

lol

At 1/27/08 09:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

and that doesn't happen very often. at least not as often as creationists claim.

Naturally.

an error requires correction, the correction may be more or less accurate but at least the earlier possibility has been eliminated. i'm not sure how its an excuse since the error is admitted.

No. I mean having multiple alternative explainations which will only fit with the current model theory.

people like to know things, science could be kept secret. generally things are never completley wrong so while some aspects may be wrongs others are still valid and can be put to use in a relevant field.

That's fine.

I don't have a problem with that. I'm not saying "fire them all", i'm saying to periodically re-examine the work and evidences after a few years.

List its positive and negatives.

by fossil records do you mean the strata are out of order or fossils appear in strata (or other areas specific to a certain point in time) that they should not be in?

Strata is the one that's pointed out more often, and I know what the explaination is.

I just want more than just: "It has to be this one to fit with our theory as whole".

generally it isn't and i'm unaware of any significant religious discoveries that were ignored.

No no.

I don't mean archeological discoveries (because those are a given).

I'm saying that when things come to things like the fossil records, the fossils themselves, or dating.

All i'm asking for is a list of how many times the theory has changed, and what evidences have been corrected and which were either wrong or inaccurate.

I, personally, would like to know its shortcomings through time in order to get a clearer and more accurate depiction. I want to look at those and understand why they needed to be corrected; rather than come to class and have them say: "This is the updated version, have fun".

that doesn't make them seperate theorems. i don't know how it would make it more accurate.

To give people a better understanding of what they mean because you'll encounter these terms at some point in your life.

A Religion and a deity are defined by those who follow it.

At 1/27/08 11:02 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm saying that when things come to things like the fossil records, the fossils themselves, or dating.

All i'm asking for is a list of how many times the theory has changed, and what evidences have been corrected and which were either wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not a geologist, so I can't really tell you about where the geologic column has had problems, but for radiometric dating, I can tell you that it hasn't changed because it's an empirically derived formula, not a theoretical model.

Essentially, the radioactive decay model is based on things that are true everywhere that they are observed. Will we ever really know for sure what's happening at the atomic scale? Probably not, because taking observations destroys the experiment. However, from experiments, we can come up with really, really good guesses as to what's going on.

At 1/28/08 12:53 PM, Elfer wrote:

I'm not a geologist, so I can't really tell you about where the geologic column has had problems, but for radiometric dating, I can tell you that it hasn't changed because it's an empirically derived formula, not a theoretical model.

Yeah.

Carbon dating was developed in 1949 and is only good up to 50,000 years and when we come to things that would require a much longer period of time, we use different isotopes, which are likely to be dated more than once to get a more accurate estimate.

Essentially, the radioactive decay model is based on things that are true everywhere that they are observed. Will we ever really know for sure what's happening at the atomic scale? Probably not, because taking observations destroys the experiment. However, from experiments, we can come up with really, really good guesses as to what's going on.

As far as we know. I've taken math... it's not like I don't know how it works.

At 1/28/08 12:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: A Religion and a deity are defined by those who follow it.

How did this come up?

At 1/27/08 11:02 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm saying that when things come to things like the fossil records, the fossils themselves, or dating.

but there are no problems with the fossils or dating methods. there are numerous relative and absolute dating methods that give consistent result. so when something is found somewhere it seemingly shouldn't be, what do you question; the dating methods or the placement of the fossil (or object)?
along with that is the fact that there are signs to indicate whether or not something has been disturbed (or whatever else may have happened to it) and on numerous occasions creationists have claimed inconsitencies in the fossil record yet the truth is that the fossil(s) were disturbed, and it is often very clear that this is the case.

All i'm asking for is a list of how many times the theory has changed, and what evidences have been corrected and which were either wrong or inaccurate.

with some research they shouldn't be hard to find.

At 1/28/08 02:45 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 1/28/08 12:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: A Religion and a deity are defined by those who follow it.

How did this come up?

Through the power of magic.

hey, still waiting, Memorize, I'm super-bored. COme on

At 1/28/08 03:05 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

along with that is the fact that there are signs to indicate whether or not something has been disturbed (or whatever else may have happened to it) and on numerous occasions creationists have claimed inconsitencies in the fossil record yet the truth is that the fossil(s) were disturbed, and it is often very clear that this is the case.

And that explaination is exactly what i'm talking about when I say: You're making up reasons to support your original claim, just so you won't have to change it.

Disturbed in what way?

Honestly. If the fossil's age are also determined by the layers representing millions of years, then what could happen to have caused such an incredible inconsistancy of the fossils appearing millions of years later or earlier in the fossil layers?

What i'm saying is that by claiming something as vague as "they were disturbed" is nothing more than an excuse to ensure your current belief remains in tact.

with some research they shouldn't be hard to find.

It's also easy to find evolutionary evidence with some "research". It doesn't change the fact that only 1 idea and 1 side of the story is presented (and sometimes required) to students.

At 1/28/08 07:40 PM, poxpower wrote: hey, still waiting, Memorize, I'm super-bored. COme on

Considering all you're going to do is bitch and whine at me about not following my "New Order", as well as your overall ignorance on basic writing techniques, it just gave me more of a reason to tell myself "Why the hell should I care about anything Pox says?"

It's truely fascinating when people claim intellectual superiority simpley because they have a belief in a certain idea, yet fail to grasp simple writing skills and techniques, as well as basic common sense and understanding.

Do you people think we should have "offical" debates in this thread?

Like, you pick a particular topic on Theism, Deism and Atheism. Two people agree to it. And then at the correct time they start debating "WITH NO INTERUPTIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE"

Stupid idea? Yep, thought so.

Memorize, what fossils are out of place? I have not yet heard of 'rabbits in the Precambrian'.

At 1/28/08 07:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

It's truely fascinating when people claim intellectual superiority simpley because they have a belief in a certain idea, yet fail to grasp simple writing skills and techniques, as well as basic common sense and understanding.

Thanks for the gratuitous insults dumbass, now reply point-by-point to my questions in the last post because you're not impressing anyone by pussying out and insulting me with your same broad kind of generalisations about everything that lead you to be possibly the least engaged "Christian" on the planet and the human with the weakest grasp of what "proof" means and implies in a scientific context.

And don't reply to this, reply to the last post I made. You're just trying to start a flame war otherwise.

At 1/29/08 02:04 AM, poxpower wrote: And don't reply to this, reply to the last post I made. You're just trying to start a flame war otherwise.

Shut the fuck up you pathetic idiotic ignorant fucking moron, I'm right.

Memeorize, You suffer from lack of intelligence. Simple as that.

with some research they shouldn't be hard to find.

It's also easy to find evolutionary evidence with some "research". It doesn't change the fact that only 1 idea and 1 side of the story is presented (and sometimes required) to students.

I agree. That both schools and churches don't teach Unintelligent Design is completely unfair. People should be presented with all the theories, regardless of how much evidence each has behind it, and allowed to make up their own minds. I think it's particularly bad how children are not only allowed to go to church but forced to by their parents from a young age. Instead, they should be allowed to sample all ways of belief...even if they end up a Mormon (or, shock horror, an atheist.)