ha
ha
ha dump em, saying you don't believe in evolution is saying you don't believe in fractions.
ha
ha dump em, saying you don't believe in evolution is saying you don't believe in fractions.
When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution
- Thread starter IsraelRocks
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think it might help to point out that Intelligence has nothing to do with ones beliefs.
I know a friend, a fundamentalist, who had almost perfect marks in school. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, every Maths course...
Certain classes at my school posted a persons grade in a course and I was personally in two classes and saw that he began and ended the course with 100% marks. Which means he never got a single thing wrong, in some of the hardest courses available.
He doesn't believe in evolution either.
Then again, may not be the same thing.
I know a friend, a fundamentalist, who had almost perfect marks in school. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, every Maths course...
Certain classes at my school posted a persons grade in a course and I was personally in two classes and saw that he began and ended the course with 100% marks. Which means he never got a single thing wrong, in some of the hardest courses available.
He doesn't believe in evolution either.
Then again, may not be the same thing.
Okay, I have to know if you're using the scientific definition of theory in your little "...everything else in science..." or the layman's "theory is like guessing" because I think you just broke my brain. Please clarify before is leaks out of my head.ElectroJosh said:
Just to clear up a little vocab here, when you apply the word "Theory" to a scientific concept, that means that there is measurable and replicable data that forms a model of reality.
When someone close to me tells me they don't believe in evolution I promptly smack them and say "No, that's wrong" I then point them to Wikipedia so they may be educated on what the public school system failed to do properly.
As a practicing Catholic I just don't understand this notion among some people that science and religion can't coexist. Where some see science as something trying to disprove religion I find that it can strengthen faith. I dare say I get a more religious experience listening to Hawking and Sagan speaking on the universe or learning more about evolution than I do from going to church. I think the idea of things just "starting" as the Bible says is ridiculous and really only the musings of people who didn't have the scientific knowledge to explain it any better.
Science says one thing and religion says another, the happy medium I've found is that scientific fact is scientific fact, however, I think within the confines of the christian orthodoxy it's not a far leap of faith to believe things were only set in motion with maybe a light nudge here and there to help things in the right direction.
Of course I never said I was a very good Catholic, and I frequently bounce in between belief and non-belief. It's sort of a fun battle of the mind; the logical versus the superstitious. Just when one is about to get a solid foothold something happens to sway things in the other's favor. Keeps my thoughts busy when I've got nothing better to do.
As a practicing Catholic I just don't understand this notion among some people that science and religion can't coexist. Where some see science as something trying to disprove religion I find that it can strengthen faith. I dare say I get a more religious experience listening to Hawking and Sagan speaking on the universe or learning more about evolution than I do from going to church. I think the idea of things just "starting" as the Bible says is ridiculous and really only the musings of people who didn't have the scientific knowledge to explain it any better.
Science says one thing and religion says another, the happy medium I've found is that scientific fact is scientific fact, however, I think within the confines of the christian orthodoxy it's not a far leap of faith to believe things were only set in motion with maybe a light nudge here and there to help things in the right direction.
Of course I never said I was a very good Catholic, and I frequently bounce in between belief and non-belief. It's sort of a fun battle of the mind; the logical versus the superstitious. Just when one is about to get a solid foothold something happens to sway things in the other's favor. Keeps my thoughts busy when I've got nothing better to do.
From what I understand, the existence of gravity and time are still only theories.Coranico said:
-
What does your friend believe in lieu of evolution? You said specifically:
So what does that mean? Is the rest of the world evolving but our species isn't? What does that mean? By what mechanism have we been excluding ourselves from evolution?
Perhaps you misunderstood his meaning. He may have intended that humans are no longer evolve. That's a statement I can understand.
Humanity doesn't evolve anymore because we aren't being affected by natural selection. That being nature selecting to eat, infect, freeze, overheat, or drown us before we reproduce. We have for the most part gotten around that selection process.
well you don't let it go but you press him for his explanation and what he believes in place of it because if he has something in place of evolution that is plausible and has evidence that well makes sense find evidence against it, debate your points and try to bring him over to your side of thought however if he brings religion into it then tell him that if he is allowed to believe in the teaching of a book that you believe the Uruk-Hai will be invading Gondor.
Evolution isn't something you can have an opinion on and be equally reasonable either way. Evolution is a fact, it can be observed [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html].SonofaJohannes said:
The theory bit, the bit that can't be proven because only mathematics provides absolute proofs, is natural selection, the idea that advantageous traits are selected for because individuals in a breeding population bearing those traits outbreed those without them and thus spread them to a greater proportion of the next generation. There's a hundred and fifty years of accumulated evidence to support it, thus it's a theory. (If it lacked evidence, it would be a hypothesis.)
As for the "there are some things man just wasn't meant to know" bit: get in the fookin' sack [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8].
What a moron. I'm glad no one else in history ever dared disagree with or challenge the scientific consensus of his/her contemporaries. Otherwise they might have been laughed at in a social forum.
*rolls eyes*
*rolls eyes*
I was just trying to point out that Evolution, in scientific terms, will always be considered a theory like all other scientific theories - because in science thats the highest position something can be placed in. In science for something to be called a theory is proof it has arrived.Salad Is Murder said:
What form of gravity?Salad Is Murder said:
Nothing's proven. Evolution is a theory. Science moves to falsify hypotheses not prove them, so as far as we know nothing flat out disproves evolution, but does that mean it is what got us here? I mean, evolutionary theory is actually different depending what biologist you talk to... So... Whaddup with that?
@Ketsuban But that's punctuated equilibrium, which is one of the many theorys. If all life goes through punctuated stages of evolution how come we haven't had one to give us that extra hand for all of our electronics? We can prove that certain species change over a small amount of time, but that doesn't explain how we haven't changed for 15,000 years or how other species change in general.
Also @Thunderhorse31... You're a hero.
Evolution works like that in what we have observed.
Or do you think that everything in evolution only happens because one person mutated blue eyes, and had a bunch of babies? Or do you think it happens gradually? So we'll have a nub within the next 1 million years that'll turn in to an arm?
Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.
Or do you think that everything in evolution only happens because one person mutated blue eyes, and had a bunch of babies? Or do you think it happens gradually? So we'll have a nub within the next 1 million years that'll turn in to an arm?
Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.
It's an intellectual blind spot. Someone can be really smart about any number of subjects except when one specific subject comes up they become blithering morons. I'm not sure why it's possible but one thing's for sure; it's very common.
Of course evolution happens gradually, what are you talking about?Sharpiez said:
It's an iterative process based on certain genes being expressed more or less frequently in a population over time, due to the influence of external factors, be they natural or artificial.
And yes, we can prove it. We have proved it. We have an entire field of science based on it. It's called Biology and we see it in practice CONSTANTLY. Humans have tail bones. Where our ancestors used to have tails. That isn't "unproven" - any x-ray can show it. Why would we have tail bones if not for evolution? why would we have finger nails or toes or anything - none of it makes sense if not for the constant influence of the environment on the survival rates of our ancestors.
Frankly the only excuse for not acknowledging the validity of the scientific consensus is either ignorance or an unmerited disdain for the way the universe actually works.