In theory I’ll agree, however, the US Administration is very selective on which “evils” it wishes to eliminate. Obviously threats to US security come first (Iraq?!?!?). Being world policeman seems to me to mean getting all the bad guys, not just the most popular. Now I’m treading on if the US has the right to act in this manner. I’d say we’d better tread carefully…
Fair enough. We are both on the same page in this regards (i.e. perceived US, as well as Canadian and other western nations hypocracy). And treading lightly is an appropriate term, especially when wearing steal-toed boots in a field full of mines and babies.
Just wondering, but do most of you believe that truth is relative? And from what I’ve seen, are most of you evolutionists? Quite frankly, I don’t see how you can come up with enough faith to believe that conglomeration of truth and falsehood.
I’ll agree that propaganda fuels most of what we believe the “truth” is. In this modern day we tend to want to believe that news agencies are “neutral”. As we see in US elections, this is not entirely true. This is why most historical books are desired to be written 100 to 150 years after events so that most facts come to light so that the real truth comes to be revealed…
I’ll accept most of the evolutionary “theory”. It is clearly not exactly the “truth” as well. However here in this case, the truth is far more elusive…
Just wondering, but do most of you believe that truth is relative? And from what I’ve seen, are most of you evolutionists?
I think there is not much people (at least not people with some education) that will claim evolution does’nt exist at all, but some think an anthropomorphic god is needed.
Quite frankly, I don’t see how you can come up with enough faith to believe that conglomeration of truth and falsehood.
We have no ultimate truth, but some thing are so probable/impropable… And when there is no reason to believe something is true, the only thing you can do is postulate it is false.
I’ll accept most of the evolutionary “theory”. It is clearly not exactly the “truth” as well. However here in this case, the truth is far more elusive…
Sure the truth is elusive, when we introduce the 0 in math, we thought it would resolve lots of problem, it did, but now we got even more question. our current theory about evolution is not the “truth”, it’s just part of the truth.
@Field:
I’ll accept most of the evolutionary “theory”. It is clearly not exactly the “truth” as well. However here in this case, the truth is far more elusive…
What part of the evolutionary theory do you accept? The part where supposedly older species are found above the younger species? Or the part where a intermediate species of homo sapiens was constructed from a pig’s tooth?
I think there is not much people (at least not people with some education) that will claim evolution does’nt exist at all, but some think an anthropomorphic god is needed.
I have “some education.” And I will accept that micro-evolution has been proved. However, macro-evolution has way way too many holes. It goes against too many scientific laws. And I am a strict Creationist, not a theistic evolutionist. I don’t believe that God left the world to develop itself.
The overall evolutionary theory of slow gradual change due to environment (survival of the fittest) and gradual solar based mutations works well most of the time. However, some scientists still refuse to accept that at certain times in evolutionary history that certain groups will mutate at varied rates, appear or disappear, or radiate differently than the above. They also rule out cosmic or earthly mass disasters as “factors” to the process. Agreed that there is not sufficient information to explain this. This also does not demand a need for a “divine” explanation. Theism is outside the scope of this response for this specific question…
There is way too much proof to deny evolution. In fact, Evolution can be applied to almost every single situation.
Capitalism - Strict Darwanism here. The Winners make money and get bigger (Evolution) and the losers die out (Evolution).
Crime - More Darwanism here. Simple enough, the losers get caught. The Winners don’t. However, Crime Prevention is also a Darwanist process. The Winners catch criminals, the Losers do not. So, Crime Prevention is always evolving. This means that Criminals must evolve to prevent getting caught.
I’m sure I could think of more, too tired.
I have “some education.” And I will accept that micro-evolution has been proved. However, macro-evolution has way way too many holes.
Sure our theory about evolution is not perfect, but it’s still a very powerfull tool. The theory that species evolve and change is very hard to refute, as hard as to defend the position that the earth is flat or 6 000 years old.
The overall evolutionary theory of slow gradual change due to environment (survival of the fittest) and gradual solar based mutations works well most of the time. However, some scientists still refuse to accept that at certain times in evolutionary history that certain groups will mutate at varied rates, appear or disappear, or radiate differently than the above. They also rule out cosmic or earthly mass disasters as “factors” to the process.
As a matter of fact now we use the theory of complexity to understand evolution, and in this theory there is two type of changement (evolution); homeostatic and catastrophic. When you speak of gradual evolution, you speak of homeostatic changement. A good exemple of catastrophic changement is the vampire finch in the galapagos, he was force to eat blood on other bird because he lack food, evolutionist believe his beak will adapt very fast.
There is way too much proof to deny evolution.
Agree
Capitalism - Strict Darwanism here. The Winners make money and get bigger (Evolution) and the losers die out (Evolution).
Application of darwinism “capitalism” is called “Social Darwinism”, and it’s a little like fixism, it was used to maintain the Status quo. Also evolution is about… changing and mouvement, if we use the concept of evolution to promote inertia, there is a problem somewhere. Finally; i don’t think the strong are favored in capitalism.
Evolution does not have to contradict the existence of God.
Evolution does not have to contradict the existence of God.
No, but common sense does :)
There is way too much proof to deny evolution. In fact, Evolution can be applied to almost every single situation.
Capitalism - Strict Darwanism here. The Winners make money and get bigger (Evolution) and the losers die out (Evolution).
Crime - More Darwanism here. Simple enough, the losers get caught. The Winners don’t. However, Crime Prevention is also a Darwanist process. The Winners catch criminals, the Losers do not. So, Crime Prevention is always evolving. This means that Criminals must evolve to prevent getting caught.
I’m sure I could think of more, too tired.
Evolution does not have to contradict the existence of God.
No, but common sense does :)
uncommon sense does not.
This classic arguement between atheism and religion is really making me want to take out the book “the Khazars” written by Rabbi Judah Ben Levi. He wrote down a famous story about a kingdom known as the Khazars or Kuzarites whose king wondered if God existed and if so how to worship him. So he brought a Muslim, a Christian, an Atheist and a Jew to argue with him. The book goes through each arguement between the king and each of the representatives until the king ultimately made his choice by out-arguing three out of the four representatives.
never argue with a Jewish Rabbi.
I once dated the daughter of a Jewish Philosopher . . . very interesting guy. Never really talked about Martin Buber tho’.
Well, if I recall correctly, the part where the king argues with the Jews is the longest part of the book. He manages to beat the atheist in his arguement with him.
My two theories were not ment to be related to evolution of a species. What I ment by them was you can see how evolution could be viable by applying them to other situations.
There is a plethora of proof surrounding evolution. There are scores of Religious explanations, each one cancels the other out. However, there is not one thing that cancels out evolution with any proof besides ancient myth.
Denying evolution just puts our understanding of history and science back a few hundred years.
there’s no proof for evolution, simply supporting evidence.
If you don’t call that a proof, at least admit there is tons of evidence. When evolutionist predict they would found a whale with legs, they did found it ! And that is not just an anecdotal evidence !
Well, if I recall correctly, the part where the king argues with the Jews is the longest part of the book. He manages to beat the atheist in his arguement with him.
I think it’s very hard to beat an atheist in a formal debate (…but not the kind of atheist that worship his own ego, or atheist like Sartre, that belief god does not exist because if he did humans would not have absolute freedom).
However, there is not one thing that cancels out evolution with any proof besides ancient myth
Right, but evolution is complex, most people don’t like that aspect of science.
Denying evolution just puts our understanding of history and science back a few hundred years.
Several dogmas slowed down science.
there’s not really any overwhelming evidence. most dates are found by carbon dating, which is nothing short of unreliable.
creationism can be applied to crime as well. Creationism involves God. The first two humans (Adam and Eve) did not obey His only restriction, and that is why they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. after that first act of disobedience people did wrong. (of course if you don’t believe in absolute truth there is no wrong).
what can i say? i don’t think that i alone will be able to convince you to change your mind, but these online debates sharpen my mind. i don’t have many opportunities to be involved in these “conversations” at my school or even where i work (since i don’t have a job).
and in response to:
When evolutionist predict they would found a whale with legs, they did found it !
they also found younger species below “older” species, but they prefer not to publicize that, right?
and evolution can be refuted, and 6000 year old earth supported. if the earth/universe was millions of years old, the moon would be miles of dust deep. the volcanic deposits would be greater on the earth as well. to say that a young earth cannot be supported is, in my opinion of course, is like saying evolution cannot be supported. neither can be absolutely proved, but a young earth is better supported.
