Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 216 (140338)
09-06-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:27 AM


Then you accepted it for the wrong reasons. Evolution stands on the evidence which supports it, not because people like you take it on faith.
quote:
Me and a lot of other scientifically illeterate people, thats my problem with evolution, and the way they teach it in schools. I am not apposed to teaching it though.
I think your problems with evolution are:
1) You don't know anything about it.
2) You have a lot of misconceptions about it.
3) Your religious beliefs require that you reject evolution but not other scientific theories.
The way you were taught years ago, if you actually were taught to just believe evolution on faith, is irrelevant to if the theory is valid.
Don't mistake the reasons you used to accept evolution with the reasons I and others here accept it. We have not made the mistake you did, and neither do most professional life scientists.
quote:
I can't because of my ignorance.
Like I said, ignorance is curable.
I am now understanding, I think, where you have gotten the idea that all of us and scientists believe in evolution as a religious faith; it's because you figure because you did this, then everybody who accepts evolution must have done this, too.
quote:
I can't give a qualified answer to this one way or another. I have seen some scientist who do not accept it as fact. So that leads me to qestion.
Only a very tiny fraction of a percent of the world's scientists who's degrees are in relevant scientific fields question the validity of evolution.
That evolution happens is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is not a fact, but an explanation of the facts (evidence), just like it is a fact that matter is made up of atoms, but the Atomic Theory of Matter is not a fact, but an explanation of the facts (evidence).
quote:
I only wish that scientists would not use evolution to not believe in God.
The thing is, that is their personal, religious/philosophical choice if they do that or not.
quote:
Whether its their religion or not is a separate issue.
Agreed.
Sure, I appreciate it. However, this doesn't mean that you get to make claims about the entire scientific community and what they publish in their professional journal articles if you don't really read them?
quote:
Well I used to read some of them when I worked in a hospital, and what I noticed was how many mistakes are made. I also noticed the good that comes from it.
...but did you notice anything regarding God or religious-type faith in the papers?
I can only conclude that you are singling out the ToE to reject because it contradicts a literal reading of the Bible.
quote:
When the gravitational theory starts to replace religion, I will have the same problem with it.
But how does some people starting to believe in gravitational theory as a religion change the theory of gravity?
The theory is the same, regardless of how some people view it, right?
Are you saying that if some people start believing in the Theory of Gravity as a religion, pencils will start falling up and planetary orbits will begin to change?
quote:
I do not reject ToE because it contradicts a literal reading of the bible, I am niether an expert on the bible, or ToE. I have a lot of knowledge, but I do not have the complete picture as of yet. It is my goal to.
If you don't understand the ToE, then why do you reject it?
If you don't understand the various Theories of Gravity, why do you accept them?
You aren't fooling anybody, riverrat. It is clear that you accept certain theories because they don't interfere with your religious views, and reject others because they do.
quote:
I do not actually reject it, I just do not fully accept it yet. This was part in due to some of the debates I have seen on creation vs evolution.
Which parts do you still have issues with?
Anyway, why should a scientist consider an anomolous finding to be anything else than an anomoly if the previous million findings have suggested something else?
[quote]Thank you, you proved my point.
How about answering the question I asked right after the bit you quoted above but you failed to include:
IOW, should scientists constantly question the validity of the entire Germ Theory of Disease every time they can't figure out right away what is the cause of a particular disease?
You had better support this serious accusation with some evidence very quickly or retract and apologize.
quote:
Happy atheist mentioned it. That doesn't mean it wasn't found out.
I also saw a special on discovery, I forgot the details, but it was a fossil of a lizard like creature, that had a tail and wings. Scientists went nuts over this, until the eventually figured out that it was a fraud. I do not have to retract my statement, because it does happen. We only know about the ones we "bust". which I hope is all of them. The scientific method should weed all of them out eventually.
Who do you think "busts" the incredibly small number of fraudulent scientists?
It's other scientists, riverrat, through the peer review and replication process which finds them out.
Oh, and you are wrong about the fossil find.
It wasn't "scientists" who went nuts over the find, it was the magazine editors at National Geographic who went nuts and made a very premature claim that it was a new species of feathered dinosaur.
The actual Paleontology community of scientists were much more cautious and were never convinced that what NG claimed was true, and were ultimately the ones to figure out that it was two pieces of two different fossils.
So, this fraud was not perpetrated by scientists, was not publicised by scientists, but was sniffed out and exposed by scientists.
This, in fact, completely contradicts your claim that it is the scientists often committing fraud, and colluding with each other to maintain falsehoods.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...120_021120_raptor.html
The Archaeoraptor fossil was unveiled in October 1999 at National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington, D.C., and received considerable attention from the media. National Geographic magazine published a cover story on the fossil in the November 1999 issue.
Within days, rumors questioning the fossil's authenticity began making the rounds in the scientific community. By late December, the fossil's claim to validity was shattered. Xu Xing, a paleontologist in China who had seen the fossilbrieflyand was cited in the National Geographic story, e-mailed his colleagues and the magazine.
"I am really sorry to tell you a bad news!" he wrote. "I am 100 percent sure ... we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen."
Xu, who has excavated many fossils in Liaoning province where the original specimens were first found, had seen the exact counterpart of the slab containing Archaeoraptorthis time with the tail of Yanornis attached to a dromaeosaur body.
Yep, all of those cancer cures are totally wrong. That vaccine stuff? Wrong. Predictions of eclipses and metoer showers? Completely wrong most of the time.
[qs]Cancer cures have a long way to go.[/quote]
But are they ineffective most of the time, as you claimed??
Do all people who get cancer die of it?
quote:
Vaccine stuff just might wipe out the entire population. How you ask?
By creating super germs resistant to all medicine, and beat out our evolutionary defences. We won't know this until it happens.
Um, no.
You are confusing antibiotics and vaccines.
Antibiotics are chemical substances which are known to poison, and therefore weaken or kill, bacteria. It is true that overuse and incorrect use of antibiotics encourages the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria through natural selection. (evolution in action)
Vaccines are killed or weakened viruses which, when introduced to the bloodstream, induce our bodies to form antibodies specific to that virus that then combat the virus.
You have to get a flu vaccine every year, because the flu virus keeps mutating and we have to develop a new, virus-specific vaccine.
Vaccinations have been an enormous tool in the elimination of many previously devastating infectious diseases like measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, rubella, scarlet fever, polio, influenza, and many others.
quote:
Astronomy is a different subject, and even though they can predict meteor showers, their predictions are most of the time inaccurate on the level of intensity.
...and eclipses? Are astronomers mostly wrong about when eclipses happen?
quote:
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't try all of the above things. Just pointing out how it is inaccurate, and most of the time wrong.
But you haven't supported your claim that science is "wrong most of the time" at all.
quote:
Due to my own personal SUBJECTIVE tests God has shown himself to me, time and time again. I only have faith that he will keep his promises to me. You can call it what you want, doesn't matter.
It does matter, however, that you arrogantly claim that everybody believes just like you do, they just deny it or don't know it.
Who are you to tell someone else his or her own mind?
[quote]First of all, there were no scientists 2000 years ago.[/qs]
quote:
There were no astronomers 2000 years ago? You keep including them in our science discussions.
There were no scientists in the modern sense, no.
Most people who studied the stars 2000 years ago were doing Astrology, not satronomy, because they believed that the stars were lights set into a dome, not other stars or other planets or other galaxies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:27 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:56 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 160 of 216 (140379)
09-06-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 10:57 AM


The fact that we can simply call falling "gravity" is our privilege of growing up in a time when great minds have started to figure this out for us.
quote:
Wow, it took a great mind to figure out that we fall, thats a good one. Amazing, tell me more Mrs.Wizard.
Didn't you even read what I wrote, Riverrat?
People fell for millions of years before anyone ever thought of the concept of "gravity".
If you think that Gravity is such a simple concept, why don't you explain the various Gravitational Theories here, including their role in planetaty orbits and stellar formation. Throw in some stuff explaining the gravitation of black holes for bonus points.
Please indicate which version you think is most accurate, and why.
quote:
It took great minds to see that the planets actually do not revolve around the earth.
No, and did I say that gravity explains that? No, I didn't.
I said that gravitational forces are involved in how planetary orbits present themselves.
Perhaps you might want to take some more time to make sure you read my posts carefully before you reply.
I am having to correct you almost every time you respond to something I've written, because you are not correctly grasping or comprehending what I write.
quote:
Absolutly not. I stand by 100% and it makes perfect sense, and it gets proven over and over all the time.
Its obvious that we will not agree on this. It would seem the odds are your guide in life, and you rely on them for many things, but they aren't for me.
Do las Vegas casinos lose money because the odds are irrelevant? Or, do they make money precisely because they can calculate the odds very accurately?
That is what evolution proposes. The false cartoon of Evolutionary Biology you draw is much like a bad sequel to "The Fly".
quote:
Thats funny, or is it?
What I'm saying is if evolution is true, then anything should eventually be able to become anything, given enough time, and circumstances. Isn't this true?
Populations, not individuals, would be able to change as much or as little as the environment dictates, given enough time, yes.
That is not what you were proposing, however.
You were telling me that you rejected evolution because an individual, me, could not instantaneously change into a very different species.
These are very different claims.
No, the fact that I think it's not is because I understand how evolution works and you don't.
quote:
So what mechanism would stop you from becoming a whale, if we knew how?
Because my genome is fixed. Evolution does not happen to individuals, but to populations.
quote:
What if we kept throwing you and your succeeding generations in the water, and kept them from learning speech, or anything else for that matter. What would stop them from becoming a whale, or some kind of sea creature? I mean the whales became whales. Maybe not from humans, but evolution can go in reverse (figure of speech).
If the evolutionary pressures favored an aquatic lifestyle for humans such that the offspring born in and living in the water were able to survive just as well as or better than land dwellers, then an aquatic species or sub species could emerge over a long time.
[qs]Or what if we kept throwing you off a cliff for the next 2 million years, you think you would grow feathers and fly? Whats that magical thing that makes feathers appear?[/quote]
If you threw me off of a cliff, I would die and then I would not be able to pass on my genes.
Of course, feathers are used for insulation and sexual display, so their being used for flight is only one of their uses. Also, feathers are not needed for all flight; witness flying squirrels, bats, and insects.
Now, I have a question for you.
Since we know that whales are mammals, what features would we expect to find in their ancestors if they evolved from land-dwelling mammals?
No, individuals DO NOT EVOLVE, populations do.
quote:
The same pressure that would make a population evolve could also make an individual evolve, your saying he can't? What sense does that make?
Evolution is, BY DEFINITION the change in alelle frequencies in POPULATIONS over time.
POPULATIONS. POPULATINS. POPULATIONS.
Do you know what DNA is?
Do you know how you got your genetic information?
If you love science as much as you say you do, don't you think that you should study and understand at least the basics of the science of evolutionary Biology?
quote:
Yes, I will. I have learned a lot since coming to this forum. I have followed links and studyed when I have the time. Unfortunatly I will not become Mr.Scientist over night. I am a very busy individual with 5 kids and my own business. That is why I keep telling you I am not qualified to argue about evolution, but I can discuss some of the issues surrounding it. I do have a basic understanding of what evolution is. But I have many questions about it, that I need to answer.
That's good that you have questions and want to learn more, but judging from what you have shown me in our discussions, you are far, far from having a basic understanding of evolution.
quote:
I have watched many debate videos about creation vs evolution, and from what I see there is enough missing evidence for me to not believe in evolution.
Let me guess. Those "debate videos" are all from religious and Creationist sources, right?
Those debates are only convincing to the uneducated, which you are.
Read the links I gave you, then open a thread in the Evolution forum and we will discuss your specific issues with the facts.
quote:
However, there is hardly enough evidence for me to believe in creation. I only believe that God made us, I just don't know how.
Have you considered that God used evolution?
quote:
I am unsure if we evolved to our current state, or he flat out created us, and God filled in the gaps, or there is another mystery that we just haven't figured out yet.
Go to TalkOrigins and read about the scientific evidence for human evolution.
quote:
I don't think this is an unrealistic view based on our current knowledge.
No, it is an unrealistic view bassed on our current knowledge.
Since you admittedly don't know much about the ToE, how can you tout your view as based upon current knowledge when you don't know what the "current knowledge" is?
You haven't seen asteroids. You have taken other people's word for it that those are rocks flying around. All you see are little points of light. Do you now reject the idea that asteroids exist?
quote:
I have first hand observed asteroids, and tracked them.
No, you have seen points of light that some scientist told you were asteroids.
You, personally, have not identified them as asteroids.
You have taken a scientists word for it that they are asteroids.
No, it is NOT a theory.
It is mathematics. It is axiomatic.
quote:
Also for purposes of our discussion, we must keep mathematical odds separate from biological odds, as they are very different.
What, pray tell, are "biological odds", and what makes the math used in the statistical analysis of Biology data fundamentally different from any other math.
quote:
I do not have to much trouble with mathematical odds, but they still do not explain if I would win or not.
True. It's random if you will win or not, or if anybody wins.
It is fallatious to say, AFTER YOU WON, that your odds of winning were 1:1.
You odds of winning are the same as anybody else's who bought the same number of tickets as you did.
[quote]I know how you like to lump all these things together for the benifit of your argument.[quote] Math is math.
The use of the statistical analysis/odds is so that the people who run the lottery and casinos can accurately predict how much money they will make from their games of chance.
quote:
Right but how do they know whos going to choose which # ?
THEY DON'T, which is what I explained to you previously.
Who wins is random.
Where is faith involved?
[qs]Thats why the odds are inaccurate in determining if I would actually win or not.[/quote]
The odds are not inaccurate in determining if you would win.
That's not what odds do.
Where is faith involved?
[qs]To me the odds only explain how many combinations there are.[/quote]
No, they also predict the distribution of number of winning tickets from random chance.
Where is faith involved?
quote:
They do not explain which combination will be drawn, or which combination I would pick. True or false?
No to the first sentence, because it's random, which is dealing with statistics, and no to the second sentence, because that has nothing to do with statistics.
Where is there faith involved?
Man, please get a basics statistics book and learn some of this stuff.
My friend used to say that the lottery was a tax on people who are bad at math.
[qs]Because my level of thinking about odds, are a step above your, does not mean I have to back and learn about odds.[/quote]
Yeah, right.
You who thinks that Murpey's Law is used by insurance companies understands statistics better than me.
The behavior of the lottery is exactly and precisely predicted. We know exactly how often, based upon numbers of tickets sold, the chances that nobody will win, exactly how often one person will win, exactly how often two people will win, etc. This will not predict, however, which specific days those wins will happen
quote:
That is an inaccurate description of lotto odds. The odds only explain the possible combinations that can be achieved, not how often someone could win. There is no way of figuring out the odds until all the numbers are picked, and all the lotto tickets are in.
Well, sure, it depends upon how many people play.
But the rest is completely accurate.
Where is faith involved?
quote:
Nice horse by the way.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 10:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:23 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 165 of 216 (140391)
09-06-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:56 PM


riverrat, you have made it abundantly obvious that you are not, never have been, and are unlikely to be interested in engaging in honest debate.
You distort what I say, you do your best to weasel out of answering very direct questions, you flat out refuse to admit when you make a mistake, and you show no interest in trying to understand what I am telling you.
If being a Christian makes people as intellectually dishonest as you have shown yourself to be, then I am sure I never want to be one again.
I'll let somebody else bang their head against the wall for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:33 PM nator has replied
 Message 175 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:35 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 167 of 216 (140394)
09-06-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by lfen
09-06-2004 2:24 PM


quote:
You are not, of course, required to accept the theory of evolution.
...and never have I demanded that he do accept it.
I have, all along, simply been pointing out that his reasons for rejecting it were illogical and baseless.
quote:
The other matters you addressed I'll just let drop, simply noting that a logical defense is most often preferable to sarcasm because it is more informative to those who read your post and less subject to misinterpretation.
I was not being sarcastic when I brought up the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease to show the illogic of rejecting the ToE for the reasons rat gave, which were because there were "gaps" in the theory, and because the ToT wasn't proven 100%.
These other theories were simply good examples of theories rat was not likely to disbelieve, even though there was less suppoting evidence for them compared to the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 2:24 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 4:24 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 168 of 216 (140396)
09-06-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by jar
09-06-2004 2:33 PM


quote:
Please do not judge Christianity by christians.
Isn't there something in the bible about "you shall know them by their fruits"?
How else can I evaluate the usefulness and merits of a religion than by the behavior of it's adherents?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2004 01:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:46 PM nator has replied
 Message 176 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:45 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 196 of 216 (140613)
09-07-2004 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
09-06-2004 2:46 PM


quote:
The problem is all you've been seeing are the fruits.
LOL!
Well, I guess that's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:46 PM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 197 of 216 (140614)
09-07-2004 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by lfen
09-06-2004 4:24 PM


OK, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 4:24 PM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024