josh writes:
I would be happy to promote this site on
http://www.spymac.com. If an admin is reading this, I wonder if you can move this thread to somewhere where it will get a little more attention. In case anyone wants to see the (sadly) one-sided discussions there, here are the last two ridiculously long posts.
could you explain what you mean by my signature "not pertaining to biological evolutionary processes, I would appreciate that
Certainly. The question in your signature refers to life arising from non-life. This is the concept of abiogenesis. Evolutionary processes are solely concerned with how life evolved/developed/changed after that moment of life creation. Anything prior to that moment does not and never will pertain to evolution.
One other thing I'd like to add to this topic of evolution. When evolution is defined specifically as the change of allele frequencies in a population over time, we are specifically referring to a factual phenomenon that can be repeated in basic laboratory tests. The Theory of Evolution (TOE), however, is the best explanation on how the fact of evolution occurs over much longer periods of time. This Theory is also strongly supported by a wide variety of sciences including comparative biology, cell and molecular biology, genetics, pathology, paleontology, anthropology, geography, and geology.
I would certainly not say that it is inappropriate for anyone, even on a high school level, to ask how in the world do all these branches of science best fit the TOE. The problem is really that TOE is pretty damn complex in the details, esp. when one starts pulling out primary literature (pubmed, for example).
Most high school biology teachers, or even a high school science book would rarely ask a student to study details. But in essence it really isn't much different than studying the concepts of force in your high school physics class. A high school student is told to study the basic principles given in their book on force, with the basic Newtonian examples on how force is inflicted upon all things with mass. But how many high school students are asked to examine and study recent research of quantum theory from primary literature books such as "The American Journal of Physics", or "Physical Review. E, Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics?" Hell, I think it's fair to say that most college students who major in physics are not even required to do this until their last year in college or beyond.
But yet I find this to be one of the primary qualms with those who want to question why Evolution is being taught in high school, as well as those who question the basic principles that are outlined in high school biology books. It is not as if these basic principles are supported by conjecture and circumstantial evidence. Similar to quantum mechanics and complex astrophysics, the truth is quite the contrary. There is a myriad of evidence to support the basic tenets outlined in your high school book. But if you're asking the audience here to show you "proof" of this evidence, unfortunately the answer is really that you have to take a look for yourself in the primary literature.
Perhaps if you had a question or concern on a specific topic, however, I and others might be able to help you a little better (though my knowledge is admittedly limited).
Finally, I think that it is similarly fair to ask Creation Theory what evidence it has to support its notions. Most critics of Creationism feel that the majority of "evidence" that supports Creationism lies solely on its attempts to disprove (or distort) TOE. This is logically incorrect, and falls into the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy (argument from personal incredulity). Perhaps if it had more positive, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence of its own, scientists would give Creationism a little more support. As it stands today, however, none exists.
When you percieve something you choose to interpret your surroundings in a way that fits with your ideological and kowledge base...... This is the intrinsic flaw in this debate...... both sides can choose to accept what they see or deny it. But this flaw is more commonly expressed in the religious side of the debate. Due to the simple fact that they don't have to accept any facts at all, and can make ip their own truths and say that they were derived from the heavens...... For a scientist to do this, would be a tragedy, and they would be dropped from the scientific community. Now to choose what you accept as a truth allows you to accept what is factual and what isn't. and by definition to do this means that you could interpret everything as being wrong. Those that state that evolution isn't true because it is a theory, even though it isn't(see the last thread) it's a model of various biological, chemical and physics based systems; don't understand that by stating this they ar
e undermining every thing that has ever existed.... Why, because to not accept something as being actual because it's a theory, means that nothing has ever happened nor ever will. Reason being, that every single thing that has happened and that we percieve is based upon our own personal theories on how the universe is interacting with us. therefore 1+1 can't equal 2, based upon this null acceptance belief structure the 1 doesn't exist. why because we percieve that 1 is there even though it may not be. Same with the plus sign and the equal sign and the 2. None of those exist because they are only there because of perception. And everything is a theory because nothing can ever be truly proven as factual. therefore there is no evolution, no god no creationism and no universe...... we don't exist we can't.... not not accept theory means that you don't accept anything..... ergo you don't exist..... Now time for paradox's....... To have a paradox, is impossible, reason, if somethi
ng is a rule, then it is a constant and never wrong, but a paradox is an exception to a rule. which itself creates a paradox. now this paradox creates another paradox because it merely exists. but yet nothing exists(which itself is a paradox) and to have a paradox means that there has to be facts. Yet facts are a paradox...... What you get is a fractal paradox........ this stretches to infinite.... Of course infinite is a paradox, there is no forever, based upon human perception forever can't exist. same with zero, to not have anything is flawed......... Now the problem with perception is that it is loaded with paradox's. same with choice. Every one's perception of everything is different, and yet the world exists, and we continue to percieve it. now if god made the universe and created everything, then shouldn't everyone percieve that he did that. well i sure as hell don't. every percieves that there is a world, that there are stars, light, dark..... right.... yes... these
are constants.. and if god created everything, then we would be able to percieve that, and actually be able to provide evidence of his doing.... right.... yes.... and yet there continues to be interestingly enough zero and i repeat zero observable and percieveable applications of his doing..... you can't even make a random guess as to what he had or didn't have his finger in...... So take stock in what you percieve and what you can prove by providing evidence, not just qouting, a book that has been proven to show dramatic flaws in it's translations........ sadly few if any of the creationists will accept anything that i have said becuase you all percieve it to be flawed by my own ignorance of what "really" exists....... to that i say, "if you can show me exactly what you see, then i will accept everyting that has been told to me by the bible". Once again i can never experience that because it is impossible, and the paradox that we "exist" in prevents us from exploring even w
hat we think of as truth..... Why because we choose not too, and yet it is a choice that none of us have ever made........ hmmm more paradox's...... now this post is open to interpretation, but if you don't read it in the right context then you won't understand what i am trying to say...... hey what does this remind you of.... the bible perchance, hard to figure out how to interpret it..................................... i may enlighten you on how to read this or i may not........ it depends upon how i "percieve" the respones it gets, if any, because they may not even exist...... unless i choose to percieve them and choose to interpret them............
SOrry for all of this junk, but I am hoping that someone will notice something here that they can comment on at
http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89917THanks
) the topic, and maybe learn something new. Well, it seems that mac users aren't the most religious...There are about 5-6 different posters, with all of them being pro-evolution. We are just missing one tiny thing....The other side of the debate. Although you may not approve this based on the fact that it is a different forum site, I guess I can just plead to you to direct some (well-educated) people to join in, and maybe support my limited (high-school) background.
™ Version 4.2