Acceptance...

[Veacane]

I agree with loach43 I'm completly undecided about religions and I know that you said that this is not what this thread is about but, I like to entertain the idea that, if there is a controling force in the universe it decided long ago that not how but that things would evolve and interact with each other.

 

[BIGgourami]

i say yeah i believe in it, because there really is nothing else that could possibly explain the diverse species on earth


but yeah, this kinda threead usually ends up closed after 45-70 posts

the falsehood of one theory doesn't dictate the validity of another

as long as everybody stays on topic there's no reason to

 

[BIGgourami]

There is more factual evidence that supports it than there is against it.

You can't really say the same about religion ( i know it's not supposed to be about religion, but you can't argue one without the other right? )

You have to believe in one or the other, as one contradicts the other, and to believe in both would be blasphemy.

evolution in no way refutes the origin of the earth, universe, life, or any religion.. please stay on topic to avoid a 404..

 

[BIGgourami]

I agree with loach43 I'm completly undecided about religions and I know that you said that this is not what this thread is about but, I like to entertain the idea that, if there is a controling force in the universe it decided long ago that not how but that things would evolve and interact with each other.

please stay on topic
we are not talking about god.. we are talking about science

 

[Plasticmotif]

By your criteria of what a theory is, then my answer would be no. If all of the evidence that supported other "theories" were allowed to be as public as the evolution theory, you would have far more nay-sayers.

Such as the post that says "anyone with a high school education" would know better (or something along those lines), my response would be, if the information in the text books weren't censored, then you may have a different outcome.

I didn't go to public schools in Kansas so I can't attest to 'censoring'.
Freshman level biology in college will not mention anything other than evolution.


As to the 'believing' in both statement:

Of course you can. It won't be blasphemous either. Even in the vast expanse of time, the 'sudden' emergence of life is pretty hard to explain. Statistically speaking it's nearly as close to impossible as you can get for life to just randomly form out of nothingness.

Times change. So do people's understandings.

The world isn't flat.

Oh yeah, science. Yeah, the science backs it up. Evolution happens. The means or methods get a little more hairy

 

[hamato_yoshii]

please... you have a right to defend your veiwepoint.. now defend it!
where's any evidence to support such statements.. i'll gladly read it if you link it..
what other "theories"?
how does that translate into more nay-sayers

I apologize, but you will have to accept my rain-check. I am leaving work, where I use the internet, and at my new house, I dont have the internet yet, so I will not be able to fully repond until tommorrow.

What I can say is, that there are a lot of scientists who believe that evolution is not scientific and have evidence to back it up. The problem is, when a scientist switches his/her viewpoint on "Earth origins" if you will, the are dicredited by the people around them, and they never will be peer-reviewed again (in most cases, not all) because of their heresy. This causes a lot of material to not enter the public arena.
The nay-sayers comment was meant for that reason, in that if more of that evidence was out, then people would not blindly accept (macro) evolution to be fact, because they would be aware that there is more out there than what they are being told.

Same goes for history. Read through history textbooks in the US and you find that a lot of things are told differently through "American eyes". One example would be how we portrayed Native Americans, and our "struggle" to rid them of "our" land. Now more of the facts are starting to get out, and some of them are slowing being allowed to be taught in school, but for many years things were taught to kids that were not accurate. I believe this still happens today, and I have had the great opportunity to have pointed these inconsistencies out to my college professors in the past. Point being, if I am still being taught things in college that are factually incorrect, this certainly leads to skepticism on my part and others on what is being taught in our schools, and what is being told to the masses.

 

[hamato_yoshii]

There is more factual evidence that supports it than there is against it.

You can't really say the same about religion ( i know it's not supposed to be about religion, but you can't argue one without the other right? )

You have to believe in one or the other, as one contradicts the other, and to believe in both would be blasphemy.

Incorrect on all 3 points, further study of the issues would show that.

 

[hamato_yoshii]

;]the falsehood of one theory doesn't dictate the validity of another [/B]
as long as everybody stays on topic there's no reason to

Very true.

 

[cichlaguapote]

I believe evolution is the best explaination we have for how life and organisms on the planet have been created.

But if anyone has any actual information on how it could have happened other wise I'd like to know. Maybe someone can share with us these great theorys that we don't get taught or are kept off of the tele?

 

[BIGgourami]

I apologize, but you will have to accept my rain-check. I am leaving work, where I use the internet, and at my new house, I dont have the internet yet, so I will not be able to fully repond until tommorrow.

of course.. i await further information

What I can say is, that there are a lot of scientists who believe that evolution is not scientific and have evidence to back it up. The problem is, when a scientist switches his/her viewpoint on "Earth origins" if you will, the are dicredited by the people around them, and they never will be peer-reviewed again (in most cases, not all) because of their heresy.

assuming the reason for it's dissmisal is based on ignorance and not-wanting-to-hear-it. if it was dissmised oncause of irrelevancy, poorly researched, false, inaccurate, misinterpreted, inconlusive, etc etc.. than i would tend to agree with it's dismissal

Same goes for history. Read through history textbooks in the US and you find that a lot of things are told differently through "American eyes". I believe this still happens today, and I have had the great opportunity to have pointed these inconsistencies out to my college professors in the past. Point being, if I am still being taught things in college that are factually incorrect, this certainly leads to skepticism on my part and others on what is being taught in our schools, and what is being told to the masses.

indeed but while i agree that that all written histories are biased based on who they are written by (an almost unavoidable fact) the baised shown in science tedns to be that of a bias to reason and evidence. if it's scientifically plausible enough, then skepticism should be taken in both believing and disproving it...

red