- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
"Undeniable" is in fact too strong of a word in this regard.
I find it convincing. But that doesn't mean there's no possibility of finding out something else which contradicts it.
The problem with undeniable is that it is subjective. Creationists deny evolution yet use the commercial, tangible products that are derived from it. To rational people, evolution and its evidence is undeniable as manifest in things we use every day. But they still deny it.
Fine, how about "overwhelming evidence" with more and more pouring in EVERY day and NOTHING contradicting it.
I am not saying there is no possibility that evidence will come in that contradicts it, I'm saying its as unlikely as finding out that we don't actually orbit the sun. Hows that?
The problem with undeniable is that it is subjective. Creationists deny evolution yet use the commercial, tangible products that are derived from it. To rational people, evolution and its evidence is undeniable as manifest in things we use every day. But they still deny it.
The problem with undeniable is that it is subjective. Creationists deny evolution yet use the commercial, tangible products that are derived from it. To rational people, evolution and its evidence is undeniable as manifest in things we use every day. But they still deny it.
The problem with this is that it makes no sense.
I believe that both creationists and evolutionists are to some extent correct
Humans definately have connections to apes but there are too big of evolution gaps to be filled.
There is a lot of evidence from the past that points to the likelyhood of visitors in signs all over the globe.
That being said I still cannot rule out the possibility of there being a true God in some form because even though it is quite likely the universe is full of life it still had to start somewhere.
Well, YECs aren't rational in their origin beliefs. I know a guy who whole hardly rejects evolution including radiometric dating tools to verify ages. Yet he calls for nuclear power despite not understanding the same principles behind nuclear power and radiometric dating. Say what? Exactly. And he uses oil despite big fossil firms utilizing evolutionary history to search for oil deposits. It's rather amusing to watch someone deny evolution and then go use its products.
Evolution is flawed no question. Mankind has not produced a single scientific theory or law that is absolute. Evolution will likely evolve over time to incorporate new findings and become a different theory in the future.
As for creationist, depends what kind. YECs are fracking nuts.
At the current moment yes.
okay.....
Abiogenesis. But just because we don't know (abiogenesis itself is shaky) does not mean we credit a God. Essentially what you just did was God of the Gaps. A more rational approach is "I don't know."
I wouldn't call it flawed at all. They don't have a fossil for every species that ever existed, but I would regard that as an irrational expectation.
The explanation is sound, and its predictive ability (finding Tiktalik for example) is top notch. What do you mean that no laws are absolute, the laws of physics certainly are.
There are many absolutes and axioms in science and logic.
"Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute." - Ayn Rand
It is my personal theory that Earth had visitors long ago who genetically altered the apes to create humans.
They've already pretty much tossed Darwin's simple Tree of Life. I'm sure there's tons more ways in which the theory of evolution will be tweaked before all is said and done.
Again the problem is discussing evolution and the theory of evolution as the same thing.
YECs are fracking nuts.
A more rational approach is "I don't know."
They've also tossed out the epicycles used by Copernicus in favor of Kepler's elliptical orbits. That doesn't devalue nor negate the basic principles of heliocentric theory.
They've already pretty much tossed Darwin's simple Tree of Life. I'm sure there's tons more ways in which the theory of evolution will be tweaked before all is said and done.
Again the problem is discussing evolution and the theory of evolution as the same thing.
What's a YEC?
The poll is rather limiting that's why I didn't answer.
Yeah, accept for the sun not being the center of the universe heliocentric theory is dandy.:shock:
You're confusing Darwin's theory of natural selection w/ evolution, his tree was simple; the one predicted by the theory of evolution was specific and accurate.
Yes, more evidence will come in to refine the theory, that is a testament to the power of science. Scientists are both skeptical and open-minded, they are rational which means willing to change their theories or even abandon them when faced with new evidence.
You can be skeptical about the specific explanations about our particular species, but when faced with the genetic evidence for common descent with modern apes what say you? The fact is we share a common ancestor with all forms of life on this planet.
"When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”
What are you talking about with the bolded above? Where can I go to see the specific and accurate tree drawing? :rofl The dang thing has been redrawn every which till Sunday and I imagine will change so many more times that they ought to not keep putting crude images of any sort of tree of life in textbooks.
I believe that evolution occurs. I'm not sure I believe all life on this planet stems from a single common ancestor. That sounds like rot, the evidence for it is most certainly not undeniable, and I'd be as apt at this point to believe in Adam and Eve as believing ALL LIFE on Earth stemmed from a single ancestor.
As far as I'm concerned if someone denies evolution they're a tard. If someone denies this notion that all life stems from a single source - that's not so tardy.
Its also a "theory" that we revolve around the sun, theory doesn't mean guess in science.
So you're saying I have to believe in an unknown common ancestor between chimps and humans or throw every ounce of evolution theory out the window.
Somehow I doubt that.
Look I just get annoyed when scientific theory is peddled as fact. To say, "it's passed all the tests..." is just so dang ignorant. It hasn't "passed all the tests." We don't even know what the common ancestor was. We just found out in the past few years that whatever the hell it was it probably lived on the ground and not in the dang trees. Evolution in no way speaks to origin. The fossil record is incomplete,etc. It's passed all the tests, gimme a break.
It's sound. It's more sound and scientific than creationists or my alien theories. However it is not fact. It has yet to be disproven and we'd all do well to take that FWIW. But it is by no means the end all be all of biology and it most certainly is not above criticism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?