This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Evolution.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Neffi
Welcome back neffi :D. Please try to keep this as flameless as possible, guys :p.
I don't have the heart to get in the middle of a debate again. I was just shocked that MyTie, who seemed to be arguing so well, sunk as low as an ad hominem attack on me by taking that so out of context.
I guess it really shows the character of him and his confidence in his own ideas.
(See what I did there, MyTie? I insulted you.)
Post by
blademeld
Notice how Neffi talks of religion, beliefs, proofs, and all in all, has not refuted this comment:
the only scientifically sound, not valid mind you
How so? Do we need to actually look at the quarks inside a proton with our eyes? Do we need to observe orbital patterns of electrons?
Yes.
There is no sound way to prove that evolution is true, as there is no sound method to prove religion is true, however, we can make assumptions that facts that we consider true are indeed true.
Validity and perfection are two different things, as is leading a horse to the water and making it drink.
Some people will never believe that evolution is true and you'll never be able to convince them regardless of how true you believe your arguments are.
Others will never believe in God.
Now can we STFU about how much of a failure another person seems to be?
Post by
Laihendi
Welcome back neffi :D. Please try to keep this as flameless as possible, guys :p.
I don't have the heart to get in the middle of a debate again. I was just shocked that MyTie, who seemed to be arguing so well, sunk as low as an ad hominem attack on me by taking that so out of context.
I guess it really shows the character of him and his confidence in his own ideas.
(See what I did there, MyTie? I insulted you.)
He also added quotes of things that Laihendi flat out never said... lol.
Post by
MyTie
(See what I did there, MyTie? I insulted you.)I still like you anyway. You're one of the good kids here. Id rather someone hated me and disagreed with me passionately than have people who don't care, and don't believe anything.
He also added quotes of things that Laihendi flat out never said... lol.Paraphrasing really. Your arguement is that what you say is science, and if I disagree with you, I'm disagreeing with science.
On a side note, I
do
disagree with the notion that something heralded as scientific fact automatically makes it true. Science has been wrong in the past. Most of the time it is a great tool, but it isn't foolproof.
Post by
Neffi
Science has been wrong in the past. Most of the time it is a great tool, but it isn't foolproof.
But observe the key difference between it and religion. Science is a constant struggle to find truth in a provable manner. That it can be wrong is a by-product of discovery and advancement, and doesn't at all diminish the fact that it's the key to solving problems.
Religion on the other hand doesn't try to be right. It simply tries to tell you how things might have happened, and expects you to simply follow it. There is no advancement on religious part, because there is no struggle for solutions.
Notice how Neffi talks of religion, beliefs, proofs, and all in all, has not refuted this comment:
What do you want me to say? You're throwing out that I'm wrong because you have never seen an animal physically evolve. Things don't need to be personally observed with the eye to prove them. If that were the case, we wouldn't be able to prove a lot of what we know about quarks, or even that any planet outside our solar system exists (given that we only observe the stars and not the dark planets themselves).
But actually, conversely, signs of evolution are present to see. Google "observed speciation" like I told MyTie to do.
Post by
MyTie
Religion on the other hand doesn't try to be right. It simply tries to tell you how things might have happened, and expects you to simply follow it. There is no advancement on religious part, because there is no struggle for solutions.
I agree. I don't use religion in arguments. "God said, so therefore" never comes out of my mouth.
Neffi, just because conservatives disagree with you on an issue, you can't use the "They're just religious" arguement against them. Many of my social viewpoints have no founding in my religion, but instead are based on common sense, and historical observations.
Post by
Neffi
For one, MyTie, define science. The problem with your understanding of it is that you're confusing science with the product of science. Science is the basic principals and methods by which to solve problems and advance knowledge. The product of science, the body of knowledge also collectively called "science" (Science) isn't the same thing.
Stating that people have used science and come up with seemingly solid yet incorrect ideas as an argument against the collective knowledge, Science, is just entirely ludicrous. The two things are separate, and the misuse of one doesn't imply the other is flawed, or even imply that it's flawed..
The scientific method provides the means to discover rational truth, not a key to infinite knowledge. It's still the job of mankind to use it to find the truth, and in that quest we're bound to run into false assumptions. They don't demean the entire history of Scientific advancement.
Post by
Neffi
Religion on the other hand doesn't try to be right. It simply tries to tell you how things might have happened, and expects you to simply follow it. There is no advancement on religious part, because there is no struggle for solutions.
I agree. I don't use religion in arguments. "God said, so therefore" never comes out of my mouth.
Neffi, just because conservatives disagree with you on an issue, you can't use the "They're just religious" arguement against them. Many of my social viewpoints have no founding in my religion, but instead are based on common sense, and historical observations.
Well I apologize then. I thought you had brought up that argument earlier in the thread.
Post by
MyTie
we're bound to run into false assumptions.Bingo They don't demean the entire history of Scientific advancement./agree
We should just be careful, when making decisions that could affect our lives, our religion, and everything we use to define ourselves, to examine the science a second time. Was the scientific method used during the whole process? Was there any political involvment? Who was the ones doing the study? What was going on in the world when the study was conducted? Has the study been misinterpereted? This may be one of those "decisions of your life". It's ok to reexamine your logic.
On a side note, when I debate with religious scholars these very topics, I am as hard on them as I am on you.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Neffi
1) Although I have debated this to be a valid point for the longest time, this can no longer hold up because of the theory of
antimatter
. Antimatter will most likely be proven valid by the LHC. Thus, I logically do not believe that it is necessary for there to be some form of deity. However, when it comes to the question of "Why do the laws of physics work?", I must admit that the best answer I can come up with is "They just do."
You're behind. Antimatter
has
been proven.
The laws exist because they're fundamental. They are what reality is.
2) Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory with a lot of support. For example, support of it is all around you. You as an individual are a product of tiny mutations that came about because your parents do not have the same exact DNA. Brown hair? Mutation. Blue Eyes? Mutation. Note: This is simple proof to one of the many factors involved in evolution. Yet still, this is just a theory which we CANNOT prove until we being to see
significant
mutations in modern species. However, we can prove that evolution is logical.
Define, if you will, "fact". Theories are the attempted advancement of fact. Defining factual truth is a matter of observing, forming a working theory, and testing and proving that theory. Unless disproven by a better theory, evolution is, for all intents and purposes, fact.
Post by
285472
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Neffi
You can never know anything is truly anything. Ever hear of solipsism?
It's a matter of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt. I think, effectively, evolution is there.
Also, I meant antimatter is fact in that (IIRC) it's already been created and observed. You're behind on your information.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Neffi
Antimatter couldn't have "created the universe". It's the inversion of what the universe is made of, matter. And it's a byproduct of creation of matter: when energy condenses into matter, it also creates equal parts of antimatter.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
I have no idea what antimatter is (I am still in grade 12 :D), but anyway. Religion can't possibly explain all these modern theories, neffi (however, There are many subtle hints about some modern theories in the qu'ran). I like to think of religion as a way of life.
Post by
181961
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.