Final-Fan said: Smidlee said: mhsillen said: Squall_Leonhart said: Evolution = Fact! To say otherwise is to deny ones self the truth and hide behind the teachings of a story book I bet you think the bible was written just by men. If you do then evolution should get the same respect in your eyes. Written by men who's reputations and money are riding on it. That what I found interesting about these debates  is you can learn alot about people. - He obviously already determined in his mind what "THE TRUTH" is. - "The Truth" is  extremely dogmatic. - Don't trust what you read from a book. - Trust more what you read on the internet. Wait wait wait "Don't trust books, trust people on the Internet instead"?  Seriously?  I mean, are you really not joking, for real?  (Disclaimer:  some books lie, and some people on the internet should be given great respect and trust.  But your two bullet points put together are just ... it makes you laugh, but almost makes you cry.)

These bold comments are made on the internet, right.  Preachers of "the truth" from  the internet instead from a book.

Smidlee said: Final-Fan said: Smidlee said: mhsillen said: Squall_Leonhart said: Evolution = Fact! To say otherwise is to deny ones self the truth and hide behind the teachings of a story book I bet you think the bible was written just by men. If you do then evolution should get the same respect in your eyes. Written by men who's reputations and money are riding on it. That what I found interesting about these debates  is you can learn alot about people. - He obviously already determined in his mind what "THE TRUTH" is. - "The Truth" is  extremely dogmatic. - Don't trust what you read from a book. - Trust more what you read on the internet. Wait wait wait "Don't trust books, trust people on the Internet instead"?  Seriously?  I mean, are you really not joking, for real?  (Disclaimer:  some books lie, and some people on the internet should be given great respect and trust.  But your two bullet points put together are just ... it makes you laugh, but almost makes you cry.) These bold comments are made on the internet, right.  Preachers of "the truth" from the internet instead from a book.

Look I'm not saying the internet is full of liars, I'm saying there are a lot more liars or crackpots with Internet access than there are liars or crackpots that manage to get published. 

If you have some accusation you'd like to make about me or another poster in this thread, please don't dance around it. 

And I'm not sure if this "evolutionists PREACHING their 'TRUTH'" jazz is a persecution complex of yours, or projection. 

Pronouncing that you have a neurological disorder basically invalidates all of your statements past, present, and future. You must understand that we must now assume that you are thinking poorly, or are incapable of thinking logically. We after all have no idea how these problems have affected your mind. So we must assume that you are crazy. You may be a honest crazy person, but a crazy person none the less.

I am glad to know you can still grasp the enormity of a challenge, but then why chime in at all. Especially if you are going to tell us you have mental problems. That just seems entirely pointless. To come into a thread, and make points. Only to invalidate those points by drawing attention to a fragile mental condition.

your right

i bowed out

no need to push me

I'm sorry, but this reasoning is flawed. What people say aren't absolute states, like you seem to think. Two ideas that exist do not have equal footing, especially when it comes to the scientific method.

There are many ways in which this can act, but right now I'll just go for the context of what your post. Something that is written, but adaptable to change, will always finish as more correct than something written and not adaptable to change. I acknowledge that these aren't absolute states, but exist in a spectrum. But I also think that the theory of evolution and the bible exist on polar opposites of this spectrum.

The key difference between evolution and the bible is that evolution isn't bogged down with dogmas and rituals. The bible (as with many religious texts) is seen as infallible, not to be questioned, and regardless of how much evidence disproves something written in it, you have to accept it as a fact you must not challenge. Very rarely are these dogmas challenged and changed (I believe it was 1993 before the church changed from a geocentric view of the solar system to heliocentric view, 400 years after geocentric model was disproved).

The theory of evolution on the other hand changes frequently to conform with the evidence, constantly changing towards a more correct answer. If you want to test this for yourself I suggest reading an early edition of "On the origin of species" and read a modern evolutionary biology text book. It will be instantly clear how much the theory of evolution has changed in just 150 years. Our understanding of evolution has gone through an astonishing change (but the core ideas remain).

(Also, I recognise the bible as a book written by man, with no divine influence.)

I agree you should read some older evolution books and see just how many failed prediction evolution has made thoughout the years. I doubt Darwin would even recognize his own theory (unlike Issac Newton.) This is the opposite of other science fields , like for engineering. For example books on steam engines 100 years ago maybe out of date because of newer technology yet everything in those old books are still true. The same with books about vaccuum tubes. Trying to nail down evolution is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. That's because evolution is based more on human opinion than hardcore facts. (not stating evolution does not contain any facts but those facts are not what is being questioned)

No it isn't. Our understanding of evolution has increased dramatically over time because of new discoveries (like genetics) which have provided a better insight into the mechanisms. But despite our understanding changing towards the better, the core idea of evolution is still exactly the same.

Darwin said that speciation occurs because of environmental pressures, and those that are fit will be the ones who survive and pass on traits. This is still the core idea of biological evolution today, and all evidence supports this. Darwin would recognise the modern version his theory in a second, he would just be impressed at how well the original concept has stood up to testing.

All we've done is better refine his theory. This is what I means by changing frequently to conform with evidence.

Pretty much all scientific fields follow this. It's called the scientific method and it's been pretty successful y'know.

(And I'm sorry, but your attempt to use engineering contrary to this is poor, because all advances in engineering at some point come from refining and utilising our understanding of the natural world, just like in evolution).

...

And evolution is not "based on human opinion", it's a logical interpretation of facts that has been through rigorous peer review processes and extensive testing... Saying it's "based on human opinion" is almost an insult to science.

@highwaystar101

Why do you even bother?

Because I have to. If people didn't bother debating, then nobody would progress.

Well your intentions are noble. Sadly these debates seem to always evolve into a series of monologues. Generally, in a debate  the side that comes up with the most compelling evidence and that argues most convincingly wins, but in this particular debate one of the sides (not gonna say which), has a problem admitting defeat, ultimately because they do not see compelling evidence as neither a necessity nor an obstacle to adopting their position in the first place.