WrongPerson · 22-25, F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
WrongPerson · 22-25, F
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@Justbychance "Wow; hard to really understand that you can reply in the fashion that you do."
I was frustrated. That guy had been trolling all day.
"I would have thought a person of such 'Scientific understanding' would turn away before stooping so low."
You're confusing science with morals.
"Declaring a person to be a 'retard' is cheap-talk"
I didn't say he was "a retard", I said he was retarded. I'm not saying he is mentally handicapped.
"You certainly aren't 'lucky' in the 'Scientific community' agreeing with you"
It's the other way around. I didn't spend hundreds of years researching evolution then ask the world to agree with me.
"What I would not do is declare a 'fact' when there is no empirical data."
There is so much data proving Evolution is fact. You just have to Google it. I've asked the previous nay sayer to Google some and he chose to discount it.
"In the case of Religion, or any other reason, a person might not fully accept Creation versus Natural Selection"
I'm religious myself. But I don't let my religion discount the fact that science exists. Even Darwin himself was a Christian.
"I cannot quite understand why any Scientific community / group wants to 'persuade' another group of their apparent 'ignorance'."
You don't think the world should be educated and know what is fact from fiction?
"In a likewise manner, I don't see the big deal in whatever a person wants to believe in as their personal choice of those beliefs available to them."
But we aren't talking about what this guy wants to believe. We are talking about a scientific fact. You don't get to choose facts... At least not without accepting people will call you wrong.
I was frustrated. That guy had been trolling all day.
"I would have thought a person of such 'Scientific understanding' would turn away before stooping so low."
You're confusing science with morals.
"Declaring a person to be a 'retard' is cheap-talk"
I didn't say he was "a retard", I said he was retarded. I'm not saying he is mentally handicapped.
"You certainly aren't 'lucky' in the 'Scientific community' agreeing with you"
It's the other way around. I didn't spend hundreds of years researching evolution then ask the world to agree with me.
"What I would not do is declare a 'fact' when there is no empirical data."
There is so much data proving Evolution is fact. You just have to Google it. I've asked the previous nay sayer to Google some and he chose to discount it.
"In the case of Religion, or any other reason, a person might not fully accept Creation versus Natural Selection"
I'm religious myself. But I don't let my religion discount the fact that science exists. Even Darwin himself was a Christian.
"I cannot quite understand why any Scientific community / group wants to 'persuade' another group of their apparent 'ignorance'."
You don't think the world should be educated and know what is fact from fiction?
"In a likewise manner, I don't see the big deal in whatever a person wants to believe in as their personal choice of those beliefs available to them."
But we aren't talking about what this guy wants to believe. We are talking about a scientific fact. You don't get to choose facts... At least not without accepting people will call you wrong.
Justbychance · M
@Qwerty14 I've read all you have put into here and, frankly, I don't care to read this one on the basis that I know it will continue in the same vain. I disagree with you as you would certainly disagree with me; I am no teacher, but I have a point of view as do you. My point of view stops right here.
@Justbychance It's your choice. Based on that response you actually answer a question I asked in the previous comment.
Pseudonym · 26-30, M
There are two main problems with that question.
Firstly, the term 'theory' is often misunderstood in the context of science. A 'theory' scientifically speaking, is a rigorously tested model, which accurately fits all observed data (within the limits of error). Not to be confused with a hypothesis, which is closer to the non-scientific definition of a theory.
Secondly, many skeptics of evolution think abiogenesis is a requirement of the theory. That is not the case. It is implied, when extrapolating our current understanding into the past, but is not required as part of evolutionary theory. That is to say evolution describes how through reproduction, small, random mutations in genetic code are responsible for the gradual divergence in the all living organisms. The random mutations which happen to provide the best advantages to those organisms, on average survive for longer and reproduce more, thus passing on that specific genetic code. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that life evolved from non-living matter. That is still an open question and is actively being researched. Evolution does not attempt to answer that question. Hence, the theory of evolution is actually compatible with many theistic beliefs.
There is insurmountable evidence to support evolution; it is almost undeniably certain that it is a process which all living creatures on Earth undergo. It is so far beyond reasonable doubt, it puts skeptics in the same category as those who think the world is flat, or that gravity is not a force. It is what science classes as 'proven'; a state where the uncertainty in a claim's accuracy is so small that it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
Personally, I think the greatest source of distrust for evolution is our own biased perception of time. We live for an average of 70-80 years in developed countries. And on evolutionary timescales, this is a tiny amount; in a single human lifetime one is unable to witness macroscopic evolution. In the same way we are unable to watch mountains forming. It is just such a gradual process, that we cannot see it with out own eyes. But if you were to live for 100,000 years, you would be able to witness the divergence of species due to evolution (assuming you could remember 100,000 years in the past).
Firstly, the term 'theory' is often misunderstood in the context of science. A 'theory' scientifically speaking, is a rigorously tested model, which accurately fits all observed data (within the limits of error). Not to be confused with a hypothesis, which is closer to the non-scientific definition of a theory.
Secondly, many skeptics of evolution think abiogenesis is a requirement of the theory. That is not the case. It is implied, when extrapolating our current understanding into the past, but is not required as part of evolutionary theory. That is to say evolution describes how through reproduction, small, random mutations in genetic code are responsible for the gradual divergence in the all living organisms. The random mutations which happen to provide the best advantages to those organisms, on average survive for longer and reproduce more, thus passing on that specific genetic code. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that life evolved from non-living matter. That is still an open question and is actively being researched. Evolution does not attempt to answer that question. Hence, the theory of evolution is actually compatible with many theistic beliefs.
There is insurmountable evidence to support evolution; it is almost undeniably certain that it is a process which all living creatures on Earth undergo. It is so far beyond reasonable doubt, it puts skeptics in the same category as those who think the world is flat, or that gravity is not a force. It is what science classes as 'proven'; a state where the uncertainty in a claim's accuracy is so small that it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
Personally, I think the greatest source of distrust for evolution is our own biased perception of time. We live for an average of 70-80 years in developed countries. And on evolutionary timescales, this is a tiny amount; in a single human lifetime one is unable to witness macroscopic evolution. In the same way we are unable to watch mountains forming. It is just such a gradual process, that we cannot see it with out own eyes. But if you were to live for 100,000 years, you would be able to witness the divergence of species due to evolution (assuming you could remember 100,000 years in the past).
SW-User
@Pseudonym Well said. What I am skeptical of is evolution's ability to explain the origin of consciousness. I find this problematic without metaphysical intrusion.
CopperCicada · M
Justbychance · M
@SW-User Simplistic answer which, actually, says lots if we dig deeper. Good answer :)
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
@Alabamian I think the biggest lie in history and church is the lie about the true reasons, why Adam and Eva had to leave paradise..🤔
You know the true reasons...?...of course not...
You know the true reasons...?...of course not...
SW-User
@Alabamian No, dearest... Dixie is NOT biased... 🤗
SW-User
@Alabamian Nope honey, I do not! 🤗
Justbychance · M
Apparently, there are those who have it that humankind is THE most amazing concept that Science still cannot fully understand. It's hard to believe we came from some primeval slime; where the 'slime' came from is highly debated, but (apparently) accepted to be true until we have official confirmation some time in the future ... or never.
Considering that humankind is 200,000 years old, this last 100 years has us so technologically advanced it beggars beief how so much 'evolution' has happened. Do I believe in evolution? Nah, and like those who cannot 'officially' prove what happened first, that puts me in much the same place they are.
Considering that humankind is 200,000 years old, this last 100 years has us so technologically advanced it beggars beief how so much 'evolution' has happened. Do I believe in evolution? Nah, and like those who cannot 'officially' prove what happened first, that puts me in much the same place they are.
WrongPerson · 22-25, F
@SW-User why are you a genius or something
ZenKitzune · F
@WrongPerson comparably
Justbychance · M
@SW-User Why would you be disappointed? SW is a glorified Forum, and you know what Forums are like; don't you? :)
No, I don't believe in it. I believe that it seems like the most rational way to understand biological diversity, and I do sort of believe in trying to rationally understand the world instead of just believing based on faith.
walabby · M
Of course I believe in evolution. Compare a T Model Ford with a current Ford Mustang.... a clear case of an idea evolving over time with plenty of intermediate stages...
UpYourArsenal · 26-30, M
I don't even see it has something you can *believe* in or not. It's like asking someone if you believe in Santa or Bigfoot. So much evidence out there so just down to people ignorance and/or unwillingness to see what's put in front of them.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
Yes. it fits the scientific evidence.
Alabamian · 26-30, F
@windinhishair How do Tennesseans evolve?
Dolimyte · 41-45, M
Why wouldnt you?
xSharp · 31-35, M
of course, ancient Sumerians some how knew about the solar system yet as soon as the bible came around everyone started believing ignorant hubris nonsense like that the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe and blah blah blahh..
we had larger brains 20 000 years ago due to the fact we all had to be responsible for our own protection and own well being, we had to be a jack of all trades and an ace in all of them, otherwise we died off. there was no god to save us, just our own human will to survive, "not nice" i know but real life was not meant to be easy.
nowadays we share far too many similarities with farm animals, bred to be consumed..
we had larger brains 20 000 years ago due to the fact we all had to be responsible for our own protection and own well being, we had to be a jack of all trades and an ace in all of them, otherwise we died off. there was no god to save us, just our own human will to survive, "not nice" i know but real life was not meant to be easy.
nowadays we share far too many similarities with farm animals, bred to be consumed..
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment