Education

Ned,I've been reading these boards for a couple of weeks now, having become interested in the debates, and I think that your question raises some important points.You see, I don't think that it matters how well educated you are in these subjects, and I certainly do not claim to understand the science behind most of the threads on this forum, indeed some of them went totally over my head.I think is to do with belief. That's what matters. If you want to believe that God made the world 6000 years ago, and that the bible is an historical document, then you can twist anything to fit into what you believe, the same as you can attempt to explain how we grew from primitive species to a complex one. The fact is, that none of us really know. For not only is there not a complete fossil record which Substantiates the evolutionists claims, but there is also no evidence for the existance of a creator who made everything from his own imagination. As one your respondants stated, it is a leap of faith, ON BOTH SIDES. Until we have all of the information that we require to categorically prove one or the other theory, then both are in question.Being more educated may enable us to make a more informed choice as to what we believe, and I think that that is the key. We should all be given the chance to choose. What is scary is that there are a lot of people in the world, who are just told what to believe, wheteher they be jewish, muslim, christian, pagan, or sikh etc. or an a non believer. Most people who are brought up in a certain way will follow their cultural roots, and that is where the problem lies.

I know, and that is the point, you don't now all the facts, you have evidence and you believe that it shows how the world fits together , but, you don't KNOW that it is correct. Therefore it is a belief, a belief in what the evidence shows you, but it is a belief the same as those who believe the other evidence that the bible contains.

Couldn't you same the same about the people who believe the bible is correct and then proceed to provide reams of evidence to support literature that some claim to be an accurate history. It applies both ways.(sorry I'm still catching up with this thread)

First of all I don't reject all of the other evidence of evolution. I was just pointing out that since there is no complete record of fossils, it is a fact that science doesn't have the whole picture. Just as the evidence about the sun and the solar system. A person could believe in a heliocentric theory because that is what they observe. As indeed have you. You believe the solar system goes around the sun because that is what you have learnt from other sources, and you have accepted that information. But again it proves my point that unless you have the complete picture, you cannot make concrete conclusions. Just as it has been pointed out that scientists cannot be dogmatic if they are willing to recieve new information and evidence to further their understanding.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 07:18 AM

It's not me who claims it, but the creationist who demands that you prove your theory. That is one of the reasons that they pick holes in it isn't it. You know, no transistional fossils etc. But I'm not defending either theory, I'm just pointing out that noone of us have the complete picture, and that we all make conclusions from evidence that may or may not be complete, and that therefore to condemn one argument or the other as totally innaccurate is somewhat conceited.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 07:20 AMThis message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 07:21 AM

As Randman says:"Please substantiate this. Specifically show:1. How the mere fact of fossils of any kind substantiates evolution. For example, how many fossils of transitionals does ToE predict, or are you you merely arguing a totally unfalsifiable theory.2. How any number of transitionals shows evolution. Should there not be some sort of prediction or analysis of how many transitionals should be found? To just claim any that are found more or less proves evolution is basically, once again, not showing a falsifiable scientific theory, since what you are arguing is that any combination of fossils automatically verifies evolution. "see what I mean.....

I am afraid that you have taken me out of context. If you read the message you have replied to it is in quotation marks as I was quoting Randmans reply. I was using it to illustrate the fact that creationists always seem to demand rigorous evidence in support of the slightest comment about,..well anything really, I on the other hand am clearly not as educated as most of those of you who post here. I'm in it for a matter of personal interest as to why people believe in what they believe, whether scientists or christians.However I do know what you mean about time, and I think it is a fundamental problem for Creationists and ID ers. But of course they don't accept the earth is billions of years old and that that is the key to the whole question of where life comes from. It is a vast and unimaginable amount of time within which the amazing variety and complexity of life that exists on this planet has been able to develop. And I know ther is quite a body of evidence to support evolution other than fossils. And I know it is not a sudden thing/happening, it is an incredibly gradual process that happened over thousands of generations.So I hope that clears that up...This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 09:45 AM

schrafinator asked me..."Does that mean we cannot ever make a determination about anything at all?"..in reference to scientific evidence. Well maybe in a literal sense, no because we will always discover other things, but obviously as far as showing how things work and the theories to explain them, then we have to come to a conclusion at some point about something.You said"Science never makes concrete conclusions. They are always able to be corrected and refined"..and I am agreeing with you on that.As to whether a religious based belief in the Earth being the centre of the universe, well that is a matter of belief that someone may hold, and to that someone it is valid. Does that Bible say that? I'm not sure, but if it does it convinces me even more about how odd it is that educated intelligent people can take it as a literal history of the world.Let me say this though, I believe in observable phenomena, something that if I had the time and/or money, I could study myself and make my own conclusions, and if you can't say that you could do that for the things you wish to believe in, then you are on dodgy ground.

But the creationists are only "hoplessly and terminally wrong", if God doesn't exist. If he does then you are wrong. The fact remains that you don't know for certain that he doesn't exist. You just don't believe that he does."Demonstrably wrong"?... doesn't matter if you believe enough. You can tell them over an over and make point after point, but if they believe in the bible, which many here clearly do then it won't make a difference what you say.As I said in relation to the original point of the thread, Education doesn't matter. It's to do with upbringing and culture, most people will believe in what they have been brought up as, and all the knowledge in the world won't matter if it conflicts with their religious doctrine. And until you have a complete picture with undeniable proof, you will still have to argue the toss with them. Probably won't matter even then.You don't need a complete picture, I don't either, but many do, and the bible/koran/torah etc DO provide a complete picture because they explain everything to their adherants. Thats the beauty of a god, thats why so many people follow them, that's why we invented them.ps Here's a hint, you don't have to be so patronizing to make a point.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 11:29 AM

What's not true?

Ringo,I agree with you about studying and improving our knowledge, and trying to fill in the gaps, that's what allows science to advance.What i am trying to point out though is that whatever you say about the ToE is true for the bible because it's a matter of perspective, surely if you say;" When everybody agrees about what the Bible says, you can call it evidence. Until then, it is a collection of individual beliefs. Beliefs and conclusions drawn from evidence are not the same thing."I could also say;"When everybody agrees about what the ToE says, you can call it evidence. Until then, it is a collection of individual beliefs. Beliefs and conclusions drawn from evidence are not the same thing.I know there is a huge body of scientific evidence and that it is accepted as theory, and actually I believe in evolution, but I was trying to make a point about whether or not education makes a difference. I was trying to be objective and look at it from the other side of the argument.

Crashfrog this statement is erroneous.."Nonsense. God could exist and evolution would still be the most accurate description of the history and diversity of life on Earth. In fact, that's the position taken by the Catholic church. Are we to believe that the Pope is an atheist"If God did exist, and the bible was right, the ToE would clearly be wrong, you know, Genesis and all that. When did the catholic church agree with this, unsupported statement there I fear.Also,It doesn't matter if it's scientifically untenable, because if The church is right it doesn't have to make sense. This is what I am saying about belief. In your world what you believe is right and well supported by science. In someone elses world you have incorrect beliefs. You are starting to sound like a fundamentalist christian yourself. Maybe you were one, as you say you changed your ideas, but as I said, MOST people don't change through being educated more.I am trying to find some way of looking at this all objectively in an attempt to figure out, well, something. I'm not sure yet what it is I'm after, but I find these debates incredibly interesting and want to take part. So I'm sorry if I don't measure up to a veteran of 10000+ posts, but I'm at least trying to engage in this debate, and maybe bring in some new ideas.

"But that is where you would be wrong. The evidence for ToE is objective. Everybody does agree about the evidence,..."No they don't Ringo, that's why we have these boards...."A belief is not based on objective evidence..."Yes it can be, it means "to regard as true", but it also doesn't need to be based on any evidence.I don't believe that I stated that belief is the same as knowledge. you concluded that that is what I meant, but it wasn't. And anyway as I said before I'm not arguing against your ToE. I'm trying to make a point about how most people will not be affected by education.

Firstly, I've never said that you wrong about anything. So what do I need to offer evidence for. In fact I agreed with you about evolution, and the inaccuracy of the bible, I even went so far as to say I believe that religion is all made up.The point I'm trying to make, which you seem to have missed, is that you are arguing against a faith which has a definate answer for everything, ie God, while you are in the position of not knowing all of the facts. Which you and Ringo agree with. So do I, but as we also agreed, science isn't an absolute, which is it's strength, compared to a dogmatic theocracy. Although as you have shown very nicely thank you, the papists have acknowledged that there may be something in it. However, I don't see why that makes me think the pope is and atheist.And a I said to Ringo, whatever you say about knowledge and objective facts, you still have to believe it.

Firstly, you are right in that in have disagreed with you on the subject we are discussing. I meant that I hadn't challenged any major beliefs or theories that you may hold, so...Secondly you are still missing the point, because I have agreed with both you and Ringo that science does not know, nor need to know everything to have acceptable theories. For you or me to believe. but if you are argueing against a faith system which has a god to explain everything then they will be able to pick holes in your theories because they can. But as I have said before, that doesn't invalidate the scientific methodology or reasoning. I said in the post you just answered, ( or one close to it) it is one of sciences strengths to not be dogmatic.As for the pope, ( and I apologize profusly to those who may have taken exception to the term 'papist', I shall use the term 'God's vicar on earth' in future), your post didn't actually prove the pope accepted the ToE. It stated that it could be in line with christian believe, but with provisos.And you nor ringo have noticed that the word Belief means, "to regard as true". That's all I'm asking you to look at. You have a belief, and the creationists have a belief, each arrived at differently for sure, but still something you regard as true. And you are right in that you don't have to believe in something for it to still be true, due to measurable evidence, for it to exist in actuality. But unfortunately, the converse is true, in that you can have belief without those things, perhaps not you or I, but obviously, there are plenty of people out there who can. that's the problem here, that why lengthy discussion on a forum or in a classroom will probably not make any difference.